Hail Damage Question

[Herkster]

Ok, I think I know the answer to this, but it is opposite of what I've believed for a long time.
Let's say we get hail and it damages only 1 side of your house, but the insureds siding brand and color have been discontinued since the house was last sided. Is the insurance company required to replace the siding on the entire house (thinking pair and set clause) or are they only required to pay for the portion of the siding (one exterior wall) that was damaged, even though they won't be able to match the siding on that wasn't damaged?

Assuming HO5, 100% replacement cost, so no co-insurance penalties.

----------

Found Iowa (where I'm from) code - 15.44(507B)
191—15.44(507B) Standards for determining replacement cost and actual cost values.
15.44(1) Replacement cost. When the policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first-party
losses based on replacement cost, the following shall apply:
a. When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any consequential physical
damage incurred in making such repair or replacement not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be
included in the loss. The insured shall not have to pay for betterment or any other cost except for the
applicable deductible.
b. When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color
or size, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as is necessary to result in a reasonably uniform
appearance within the same line of sight. This subrule applies to interior and exterior losses. Exceptions
may be made on a case-by-case basis. The insured shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible,
if any.

 

[hesse]

In Minnesota they have a duty to match the roofing and siding. However fading/wear and tear is not covered and this is where the area gets grey. What is a reasonable match when the original shingle or siding is no longer available?

Dealing with this right now insurance company wants to pay for 1 square of shingles on an 8 year old roof. Who would want that?

 

[VolAgent]

A nice little article on this.

https://insurancecommentary.com/ho-matching-problems-and-the-pair-or-set-clause/

 

[djs]

Insurance policies tend to cover getting you back to 'similar form and function', not exact matches.

That said, there is a concept of matching and most policies have some form of limited matching available to help make things 'look' right. Your policy might have very specific $$$ limits on what they will spend to make something look correct even if it is not damaged.

In a similar vain that a lot of people don't think about is ordinance changes that happen over years and when a repair is suddenly needed, significant house enhancement are needed to comply with current building codes, something that wasn't needed at the time of initial construction. This is covered under building ordinance coverage where the policy will spell out how much the insurance company will pay because the law requires it, not because it was actually damaged in the loss.

Dan

 

[insurance1822]

Some carriers have an endorsement for this. I have seen adjusters say they'll replace all the siding if 30% or more of the siding is "off" spanning on (2) sides of the home that's clearly visible from the naked eye from the street.

 

[Herkster]

Thanks everyone, hopefully I'll hear how this claim ends up. They aren't a customer of mine at the moment but they certainly aren't happy with their current agent or company.

 

[ehall2]

I am an agent in Georgia and last year purchased an office building. The building had vinyl siding and I had a new metal roof installed. I insured the building with CNA. In January 2017 we had a tornado and it blew 2 pieces of the siding off the front and a tree limb slightly damaged the end of 2 pieces of the metal roof. The claims rep came and said there was no way to match the color of the siding so CNA paid to put new siding on the whole building. The claims rep also said he would pay to replace the whole roof. I was shocked. After 44 years in the insurance business I have never experienced this kind of claim service. This was my first policy with CNA and I am impressed with them.

 

[myfakename]

I am an agent in Georgia and last year purchased an office building. The building had vinyl siding and I had a new metal roof installed. I insured the building with CNA. In January 2017 we had a tornado and it blew 2 pieces of the siding off the front and a tree limb slightly damaged the end of 2 pieces of the metal roof. The claims rep came and said there was no way to match the color of the siding so CNA paid to put new siding on the whole building. The claims rep also said he would pay to replace the whole roof. I was shocked. After 44 years in the insurance business I have never experienced this kind of claim service. This was my first policy with CNA and I am impressed with them.

You think that has anything to do with you being an agent?
If a company pisses off an agent over a claim, would you write any business with them?

 

[ehall2]

My experience has been that it doesn't matter whether you are an agent or not. However, it could be that some companies treat the agent better.

 

[sshafran]

Another factor is loss of value... If I can tell that two sides are newer siding, and two are older (due to fading), then functionally, I may be whole, but my home lost value. Maybe not a lot... but a loss is a loss.

Also, by definition of it being "replacement cost" - I'd argue that when I purchased the home (or built it), I had uniform siding of all new product. I'm not willing to settle for non-uniform siding. Replacement cost is replacing my uniform siding with uniform siding.

Also, the vapor barrier under my siding needs to fully wrap my home - if I remove 2 sides of siding, I need to remove the vapor barrier as it's compromised, and then I need to (really) remove all of the barrier on all 4 sides so that I can re-form a proper envelope around each outside corner. You can't piecemeal a vapor barrier.

I would never let them just do two sides. Cheap, irresponsible, bad-faith adjusters would pay for all sides and nothing less...

----------

In Minnesota they have a duty to match the roofing and siding. However fading/wear and tear is not covered and this is where the area gets grey. What is a reasonable match when the original shingle or siding is no longer available?

Dealing with this right now insurance company wants to pay for 1 square of shingles on an 8 year old roof. Who would want that?

No one would want that. And a roof is a system. The slopes are connected by the underlayment. There are arguments to be made to get the whole thing replaced... look up roofing systems if you don't have contracting knowledge... a roof (done properly) is a roof done as a whole.

Like making tiramasu - if the middle is bad, you can't take the middle layer out and repair it without manipulating around it and messing the whole thing up. Just make some new tiramasu...