It remains one of the most difficult issues to deal with in the world of property insurance. Homeowners\u2019 insurance policies usually contain a provision obligating the carrier to repair or replace an insured\u2019s damaged property with ‘material of like kind and quality’ or with ‘similar material.’ They cover property damage resulting from ‘sudden and accidental’ losses. When damage caused by fire, smoke, water, hail, or other causes results in a small portion of a home or building being damaged (e.g.<\/em>, shingles, siding, carpet, cabinets, etc.), whether and when a carrier must replace non-damaged portions of a building in order for there to be a perfect match remains a point of contention. It is a matter of great importance to insurance companies because ‘matching’ problems with a slightly damaged section of roof or flooring can lead to a domino effect of tear out and replacement costs of many items which are not damaged. The problem of partial replacement is especially troubling where the damaged siding or shingles have been discontinued, making it virtually impossible to properly match. To replace only the damaged portion would result in an obvious aesthetic deficit due to a clear difference in the appearance of the replaced portion of the building from the portion that remains undamaged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Would the entire structure need to be re-sided or the entire roof re-shingled? Or is it sufficient to replace just one wall of siding or just a few shingles? Whether or not the insurance company must pay to replace entire sections of the structure in order to bring the property back to its previous uniformity and aesthetics can bring various state insurance laws and regulations into play. On the one hand, many pundits claim that the terms of the insurance policy require the carrier to pay the cost to ‘repair or replace with similar construction for the same use on the premises.’ They argue that ‘similar’ doesn\u2019t mean matching exactly. Others argue that coverage for ‘matching’ and ‘uniformity’ under a homeowner\u2019s policy doesn\u2019t exist without a specific endorsement. The truth lies somewhere in between and can vary greatly from state to state.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The survey notes the sole Colorado trial court decision more thoroughly analyzed by Butkowski and stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n