Insurance claim denials and disputes involving “matching” are frequent. I received this recent comment on the topic of matching:

Hey Chip

Back on 5/17/09, Cat adjuster posted a comment regarding matching of aged paneling and tile floors. You advised that maybe the adjusters were relying on Texas Case Law regarding causation. In my experience, the adjusters and appraisers I am dealing with in Texas simply don’t feel they owe for match. For instance, I am dealing with an adjuster who agrees that the siding on this Galveston Home was discontinued in the 1930’s and is obviously unavailable and can not be matched. He agrees to replacement of the two damaged sides, but insists the carrier does not owe for match of the two remaining sides.

I have argued that failure to replace all 4 sides will not completely indemnify the Insured. He is not moving at all. I have not found any case law or statutes dealing directly with this issue.

Any thoughts??


Continue Reading

If you have questions on insurance coverage, I have answers. A public Comment and a few private questions to yesterday’s post, Matching of Property Damage is Statutory in Florida, were enough cause to provide some general case examples and one significant suggestion.


Continue Reading

Suppose some shingles on a roof are damaged, but not all. Does a policyholder get a hideous looking checkerboard roof which affects the value of the structure and possibly the neighborhood? If part of a carpet is damaged, is it patched leaving a new part slightly different looking in the middle of a room? Many of these issues never arise because many insurance companies pay to match, trying to maintain a happy customer. Some pay for only the damaged amount, and end up fighting with their customers.


Continue Reading