Minnesota Siding Match Law

And because just the hail damaged panels could not be replaced without creating a color mismatch the buildings had sustained a distinct.

Minnesota siding match law.

A good illustration of the matching uniformity problem is found in a 2014 minnesota federal district court case in which a manufacturer discontinued the shingles used on the insured s roof thus. The match law issue in minnesota arose out of a 1999 district court case brought by then attorney general mike hatch against american family mutual insurance company. A good illustration of the matching uniformity problem is found in a 2014 minnesota federal district court case in which a manufacturer discontinued the shingles used on the insured s roof thus leading to a mismatch problem. Moreover some matching regulations only apply to rcv policies.

So if you stand at the corner of the house and. The minnesota supreme court determined that the policy s provision for replacements of comparable material and quality required a reasonable color match between new and existing siding. If the siding does not match and that can clearly be seen from a visual point then the carrier must match the siding. Iowa has a line of sight regulation.

That case directly addressed american family insurance s failure to provide match replacement for homeowners roofing and siding storm loss claims. Earlier this month the minnesota supreme court held that the phrase comparable. Sometime insurance companies insist on only replacing a portion of a roof or siding particularly the area that has direct physical damage this may be one slope of a roof or one side of a house. Sometime protection companies insist on only changing a portion of a roof or siding particularly the area that has direct physical damage this may be one slope of a roof or one side of a house.

There is not really a law in the sense that there is a state statute which requires an insurance company to replace all shingles or siding on a house. Matching issues are frequently problematic when storms damage only portions of an insured structure s exterior and it proves impossible to replace the damaged sections with material that is an exact match for the rest of the building s roof or siding. Is there a minnesota law requiring insurance companies to match existing material. 15 44 1 can be read below the key provision is the reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight term.

But there are two court cases from minnesota courts which essentially find that insurance companies must indeed replace all siding or shingles even if a house was only partially damaged.