Let’s say that your home is damaged in a storm. You need to replace a part of your roof as well as a section of vinyl siding. The company which originally manufactured these products is no longer in business, or has discontinued the line – which means that the front of your home will feature two different shades of siding, and your roof might end up looking like a chess board.
Or, at least, it could have, had the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance not confirmed, in new Rules which go into effect October 9, 2017, that insurers must pay for matching when it comes to replacing your damaged property. The Rule says:
“When the policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first party losses based on replacement cost, the following shall apply:
. . .
(b) When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace items so as to confirm to a reasonably uniform appearance according to the applicable policy provisions. This applies to interior and exterior losses. The insured shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible, if any.”
0780-01-05-.10(1)(b)
In layman’s terms, the Rule confirms our previous assessment of the law – if the replacement “parts” do not match in color, size or quality, then the whole must be replaced. To use our earlier example, then, the insurance company would have to pay for a brand-new roof or siding in its entirety, with no additional costs to the policyholder (outside of the cost of the deductible).
If matching was the law, then why pass a new Rule?
So why pass a new Rule if this was already the practice? Because the practice wasn’t uniformly followed. Generally speaking, insurers had no difficulties matching to replace losses inside the home, like replacing the entire carpet in a room when only a section was damaged. However, the cost of re-carpeting a 11’ x 12’ room is significantly lower than the cost of replacing an entire roof, and insurers often disputed claims for more expensive replacements.
The new Rule uses the word “shall,” which is clearer. It also specifies that the Rule applies to both interior and exterior losses, which helps policyholders, too. For those who might think the “reasonably uniform appearance” clause is still ambiguous, rest assured: the Rule only applies to replacements, not repairs, so there should be no outstanding arguments.
If, however, a dispute does arise, you may need the help of a skilled Tennessee insurance dispute attorney. The Gilbert Firm represents policyholders throughout the region who have had their claims unfairly denied or disputed by insurers. To work with an experienced lawyer such as Brandon McWherter, Jonathan Bobbitt or Clint Scott, please call 888.996.9731, or fill out our contact form. We maintain offices in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Jackson and Knoxville.