In Nebraska, the test for calculating actual cash value is Fair Market Value. In Olson v. Le Mars Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa,1 when both the insurer and insured advocated use of the broad evidence rule, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the test was Fair Market Value. Continue Reading Calculating Actual Cash Value, Part 23: Nebraska
In Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company,1 the insured’s roof was damaged by wind or hail. Although the policy did not define “actual cash value,” it contained an endorsement entitled Roof Surface Losses—Actual Cash Value Endorsement, which provided for roof surface repair and replacement coverage on an actual cash value basis:
Roof Surfaces: We will pay the actual cash value at the time of loss for loss or damage to roof surfaces. We will not pay an amount exceeding that which you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged roof.
We are in week twenty-one of this blog series. This week, let’s look at Arkansas.
In Balestrieri v. American Home Assurance Company,1 the plaintiff’s home was destroyed by a fire. At the time of trial, she had been paid over $900,000 based on the estimate of the house’s actual cash value, however she contended that the clear weight of the evidence demonstrated her entitlement to approximately $400-500k more than the insurer already paid. The jury instruction was as follows:
It was an exciting down to the wire finish on Monday night for the NCAA basketball championship. Congratulation to Villanova! This week my blog in the series on calculating actual cash value will focus on Pennsylvania.
In Minnesota, The broad evidence rule determines “actual cash value.”1
The test for calculation of actual cash value in Ohio is Replacement Cost Minus Depreciation.
A Maryland Supreme Court opinion, Schreiber v. Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company,1 is where we look for a discussion on the calculation of actual cash value in Maryland. Here, a dwelling house was partially damaged by a fire. The parties allowed their dispute on valuation to be submitted to arbitration. The appraisers had disagreed on the cash value of the property and had called in an umpire. The two appraisers and umpire then set down their own figures, added them, divided by three and then agreed upon that figure as the combined judgment of the three. The Court held that the appraisal was not invalid, in absence of evidence they had agreed to be bound by result of their computations.
My travels last week took me to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Since I have been writing a series on calculating actual cash value, I thought that I would discuss Wisconsin law in this week’s blog.
In Missouri, the terms “actual cash value” and “fair market value” are synonymous.1