Storm Case Study

Decent Essays
A storm that occurred on June 29, 2015, caused significant damage to twenty-seven (27) buildings and nine (9) garages owned by Rice Creek Townhouses. All buildings are located in Fridely, MN and used as residential rental units and garages.

Everest Indemnity denied this loss based on its “extensive” investigation of one (1) of the twenty-seven (27) roofs, the exterior of a total of three (3) of the townhouse units, and a walk around of all garages. This Insurer claims to have seen no hail dents to dryer covers, A/C fins, garage doors, or the shingles upon singular roof which it inspected. It did, however, find hail damage to vents on that roof. From this evidence, the Insurer deduced that the hail on the date of loss must have been
…show more content…
If there are damages as a result of the storm, then any of the pre-storm conditions are not a function of causation, but rather, a function of depreciation.

If the Panel determines that the hail damage warrants repair instead of a full roof replacement, Rice Creek submits the enclosed ITEL reports which may establish matching issues. If the closest ITEL match is contested, a sample of the alleged match will be laid against the roof for a visual comparison. If it does not match, Rice Creek is entitled to a full roof replacement. As the panel is aware, Minnesota recognizes “matching”.

In Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Association, Inc. V. American Family, 857 NW 2d. 290 (2014), the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized and adopted specific rules with the so called “matching” issue. In Cedar Bluff, the issue was whether or not siding panels on the 20 buildings comprising that Association would require full replacement in some cases, in order to achieve a color match. Noting that the subject policy required replacement costs to be determined to replace property of “comparable material and quality”, and noted that the subject term meant that available material must be “suitable for matching”. Id. at 294. The appraisal panel, in that case, used term “reasonable match”, which term was upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Id. at 295.

As in this case, the subject
Get Access