Associations Which Require Uniform Appearance Should Not Be Sold Policies With Anti-Matching Language

Dec 11, 2019 By Chip Merlin Condominium Associations
mismatched roof tile iStock 510867815

Associations normally have by-laws that require the maintenance of a uniform appearance. Repairs usually have to follow this rule so the property does not lose value and lose the cosmetic appeal which community owners desire after a loss. Agents should not sell policies to Associations which require a uniform appearance.

In a recent Minnesota case,1 American Family issued a policy to an Association with the following endorsement:

A. The Following is Added to E. Property Loss Conditions:

9. Undamaged material We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material. We do not cover the loss in value to any property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

Unlike prior Minnesota cases forbidding the mismatch of repairs, the court relied on the endorsement and held:

The Association’s argument, however, does not account for the fact that the insurance policy in Cedar Bluff had no matching exclusion. As explained above, the natural interpretation of the matching exclusion here is to exclude the obligation to replace undamaged, mismatched material—an obligation that, under Cedar Bluff, would otherwise follow from the general policy provision regarding “comparable material and quality.” The Association does not offer any binding authority suggesting that Cedar Bluff limited the parties’ ability to include the matching exclusion in the Policy, nor does it persuasively explain why “undamaged” is ambiguous in the context of the matching exclusion. The language of the matching exclusion is unambiguous. Under its ordinary meaning, the exclusion applies to the facts of this case.2

Exclusions allowing insurance companies to pay for eyesore repairs or force policyholders to pay out of pocket to match undamaged parts of a structure are harmful to policyholders. This is especially so with Associations that have to repair to a uniform and matching appearance.

Association boards, property managers of associations, and insurance agents selling to associations should not purchase the type of insurance product found in the American Family policy.
_____________________________
1 Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association v. American Family Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6284263, *2 (Minn. App. Nov. 25, 2019).
2 Id. at *5.

Are you looking for help?

Let us help you. Call now: (877) 449-4700

info@merlinlawgroup.com | Monday – Friday, 9 AM – 5PM

Why choose Merlin Law Group?

Founded in 1985, our law firm continues to be dedicated to representing insurance policyholders throughout the United States. Collectively, our lawyers are licensed to practice in 25 states. In fact, many of Merlin Law Group’s attorneys worked for the insurance industry before joining the firm, so they bring a strong understanding of insurance company practices. Anyone can file a claim, but it takes experience, knowledge, and savvy to achieve a truly successful outcome. As The Policyholder’s Advocate®, Merlin Law Group aims to drive positive change within the insurance sector by obtaining justice for our clients and educating policyholders on how to navigate insurer bad faith tactics.

When we handle property insurance claim disputes, we hire the most experienced and qualified expert witnesses to evaluate your insurance claim and testify on your behalf. In most cases, we can advance the fees for this. Typically, we hire experts such as engineers, contractors, independent roofing consultants and other professionals to perform a thorough assessment on all possible causes of damages. This is a process that provides us with a very detailed and all-inclusive estimate for determining and justifying a proper settlement. Our use of these professional expert witnesses sets us apart from other insurance law firms.

Submit a free case review