Roof Damage: Repair vs. Replace
By Robert “Bobby” Parsons, Esq.
If your home has been damaged by the recent hurricanes to hit Florida, then you likely have come across an issue regarding your roof that many property owners are currently facing: repair or replace?
Insurance companies are just that, companies, and are in the business of making money. One of the many ways insurance companies stay profitable is by saving money on claims. When it comes to roof damage, rather than pay for an entire new roof, insurance companies will try to pressure property owners to repair their roofs, resulting in significant savings to the companies’ bottom lines.
Property owners, if given a choice, would obviously opt for a whole new roof rather than risk a repair that may or may not have the desired structural integrity.
If A Property Owner Chooses Repair Over Replace
Should a property owner acquiesce to an insurance company’s financially driven decision to cover a mere repair, that property owner will likely come across a problem when the time comes to try to match the new roofing materials to their current roof.
Manufacturers of roof tiles and shingles are constantly updating their product lines, and their older models become unavailable. Not only will it often be the case that a particular color is no longer available, but often times the shape, size, and mechanical fit have changed.
To attempt to repair a roof with varying methods of fixation would critically compromise the structural integrity of the roof as a whole. Moreover, a mismatched aesthetic would diminish the value of the property.
When Things Don’t Match Up
When faced with such a dilemma, Florida law favors the position of the insured through what is commonly referred to as the “Matching Statute.”
Florida Statute Section 626.9744 provides in pertinent part:
When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas. In determining the extent of the repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas, the insurer may consider the cost of repairing or replacing the undamaged portions of the property, the degree of uniformity that can be achieved without such cost, the remaining useful life of the undamaged portion, and other relevant factors.
This statute is not merely limited to matching roof tiles, but is also applicable to other areas of homes. The matching statute is often a hotly contested issue between insureds and carriers, and guiding case law is sparse.
However, one particular court has shed light, holding that application of the matching statute for the purpose of aesthetic uniformity is only appropriate if the repairs concern “a continuous run” (1).
Property owners seeking coverage under the matching statute should therefore consider whether the subject area includes a structural or visual break, where disruption of aesthetic uniformity may not necessarily be affected by a change in materials.
If you have any questions about your rights as property owner facing property damage, please feel free to give us a call for a free and confidential consultation today.
Robert “Bobby” Parson, Esq.
References:
DISCLAIMER: This website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. Using this site or communicating with Cohen Law Group through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising. Please review the full disclaimer for more information by clicking here.
