According to Judge Gerald Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a homeowner’s insurance policy did not cover the replacement of undamaged siding, even if the new siding — on the damaged portion — did not match.
In Grote v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., a windstorm caused a tree to fall on the policyholder’s property. Siding was damaged. The public adjuster also alleged damage to the roof. The homeowners insurer agreed to cover the replacement cost of damaged siding, but offered no coverage to match. The policy’s relevant replacement cost provision contemplated repairs with new materials of “like kind and quality.” A matching exclusion also stated that the insurer will not pay for any undamaged siding or roof surfacing due to a “mismatch” of repaired areas.
The Defendant-insurer won summary judgment as to the siding. The Policy’s language was clear and unambiguous. As for the roof, the Court found competing evidence as to causation, and denied the insurer’s motion. The dispute over causation led to a discussion about whether public adjusters may testify regarding causation. The Court allowed the public adjuster to offer expert testimony on cause, but not because of a public adjuster license, but rather because the adjuster had decades of experience as a general contractor specializing in windstorm and roof damage.
This post was originally published through Horst Krekstein & Runyon’s Property in 60 Seconds Newsletter. If you would like to receive future copies of that newsletter, please use this link to sign up.