Note: This guest post is by Bob Rutter. As a partner and co-founder of Rutter & Russin, he has dedicated his law practice to achieving justice for policyholders across the Midwest who have been wronged by the very same insurance companies they thought would protect them in their time of need.
The trial of an insurance coverage claim requires the insured to prove that (1) a covered event; (2) proximately caused physical loss or damage; (3) to covered property; (4) in an amount established by the evidence.
In proving the amount of damage sustained by an asphalt shingle roof in a windstorm or hail event, the damages consist of the cost to restore the roof to its pre-loss condition. These costs include the replacement of any shingles directly damaged by the event as well as any damages resulting from the repairs to the impacted roof areas.
Reversible error occurs when a court instructs a jury on the first type of damages but refuses to recognize the second type of damages.
The recent Ohio case of Michael Williams, dba It’s All Mine, LLC v. Erie Insurance Company, 1 provides a blueprint for lawyers and adjusters handling roof and siding claims where there is minimal direct damage—here only four shingles out of 12,000—but significant repair damage—here the cost to replace all 12,000 shingles because the insured’s evidence was that replacing only the four damaged shingles would inevitably damage the adjoining shingles.
The insured’s expert testified that the entire roof needed to be replaced because:
[E]very time a shingle would be lifted in an attempt to replace it, the seal from the shingle below it would be pulled and the replacement shingle would not seal correctly.
Erie’s adjusters disputed this testimony and maintained that if proper care had been taken, the wind-damaged shingles could have been repaired without damage to the adjacent shingles. So, there was a factual issue for the jury to resolve concerning the proper scope of the necessary repairs. Erie argued, alternatively, that even if the adjacent shingles were damaged, such damage was excluded as poor workmanship, wear and tear, and deterioration, which was another factual issue for the jury to resolve.
Both sides submitted competing questions for the jury to answer. The court formulated its own question, which was:
Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on July 20, 2023, there was a windstorm at the insured location of sufficient force to proximately cause wind damage beyond the repair of four shingles, six appliques and one ridge cap?
If the jury answered “yes” to this question, it was to continue on to the other questions dealing with the proper scope of repair damages and application of the exclusions raised by Erie. If the jury answered “no,” it was to return a verdict for Erie and not answer the remaining questions.
The insured’s counsel argued that this question improperly eliminated the insured’s argument for repair damages because there was no dispute that only the four shingles were wind-damaged. The whole dispute was whether these shingles could be repaired without damaging the rest of the roof. But the court overruled this argument and submitted its question in the form quoted above.
Sure enough, the jury was confused. During deliberations, the jury panel asked the court for clarification as to how Ohio Administrative Code 3901-1-54 (Ohio’s matching law) applied to Interrogatory No. 1. The court refused to provide any clarification, and the jury subsequently answered the question “no” and found for Erie.
On appeal, the insured argued that the court’s interrogatory improperly eliminated its argument for repair damages and the appellate court agreed:
Given how Interrogatory No. 1 was written, the jury was required to answer ‘No’ unless it found that the windstorm caused wind damage to the roof beyond the wind damage to the four shingles, six appliques, and one ridge cap.
[W]e conclude that Interrogatory No. 1 was legally objectionable, did not address a determinative issue, and undermined the proper function of the jury.
The lesson for practitioners is that a property damage trial must determine the full cost to repair the items that are physically damaged, even if the repair necessarily encompasses items that were not physically damaged. This is not a new concept for experienced property insurance practitioners. But it may be for a judge, which is why trial lawyers need to carefully consider how to frame the interrogatories presented to the jury.
1 Williams v. Erie Ins. Co., 2026-Ohio-4314, 2026 WL 3268548 (Ohio App. – 2nd Dist. Oct. 30, 2026).
