Forums

Can you elaborate on the AmFam lawsuit? I'm not in MN, but am curious to know the basis of the suit.

I've dealt with a fair amount of siding matching issues, and I always document the best I can and leave the decisions to be made by the carrier. But it seems that when you ask a siding contractor, no siding can ever be matched by anyone anywhere.

Posted By Hines57 on 25 Sep 2009 05:03 PM

Can someone explain to me the matching siding issue? My understanding is that siding has to be matched or replaced in MN due to the lawsuit with AmFam. Is that correct, and if so, why haven't lawsuits been filed in other states? Was this strictly a wording issue that only related to AmFam polices or are all insurance companies in MN paying to replace?

 

AMFAM Deals with a siding mathching company, and you will have to send a sample of the siding to the matching company, ALL carriers writing property policies in MN adhere to this (or at least the several I have dealt with do).

And I have as well been asked in several states with severl carriers to utilize companies such as itel for Siding, Carpet, etc matching over the years. So it isnt just In MN, it is in several places and In my opinion if you have question and have done your research you will always be up to date on what is in production as far as siding and other building materials.

Recently in Colorado, T-Locks are not carried by the local roofing supply houses yet you can buy them from Manufactures in other states. Go Figure. These issues come up call your Lead, or Manager and discuss this with them. In time you will just know what to do.

Hope this helps.

Yes, according to the ctors nothing can ever be matched.

 

Long story short, the opinion in the AmFam case from MN says that you owe for a reasonable match.  The contractors like to say you have to pay for an identical match.  But, the actual language says a reasonable match.  So, the carrier I work for is handling our claim in MN along those lines-- If something reasonably close is available we pay for the direct dmg.  If not, we pay for all the siding.

Beats me why lawsuits haven't been filed elsewhere.  Here in IN, this siding match argument is part of every work day for me.  No case law, no matching.

Matching on first party claims comes up all the time, but the tort lawon 3rd party claims in most states is reasonable match or ACV on property damage claims. About 3-4 year years ago we had a long discussion on Claims Mentor on pair and set in hotel rooms. This was some far out PA talk that crashed and burned.

Depending on the situation and fading, I have been successful replacing then damaged elevation(s) and using the salvage to repair other elevations.