Free tool · adjusters and contractors
Matching Law by State
When the new siding, shingles or flooring will not match what is left, the rule depends on the state. Look it up and copy the paragraph for the supplement.
Iowa
Regulation · Matching requiredIowa Admin. Code 191-15.44(507B)
“When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as is necessary to result in a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight. This subrule applies to interior and exterior losses.”
Matching paragraph for the supplement
From the state-by-state appendix of the 2016 Rutgers / United Policyholders matching survey. Rules change; confirm the current text before citing.
The model rule most states copied
When a covered loss for real property requires the replacement of items and the replacement items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This applies to interior and exterior losses. The insured shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible, if any. (NAIC Unfair Property/Casualty Claims Settlement Practices Model Regulation, MDL-902, §9.A(2))
State by state
| State | Rule | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Matching limited | Graffeo v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 628 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) — matching not required; factual issue |
| Alaska | Matching required | Alaska Admin. Code tit. 3, §26.090(l)(2) |
| Arizona | Unsettled | Trudel v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4053405 (D. Ariz. 2014) — a non-matching exclusion was unambiguous but may violate the insured's reasonable expectations |
| California | Matching required | Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, §2695.9(a)(2) |
| Connecticut | Matching required | Conn. Gen. Stat. §38a-316e |
| District of Columbia | Matching required | National Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 82 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D.D.C. 2015) — matching required |
| Florida | Matching required | Fla. Stat. §626.9744 |
| Illinois | Fact question | Mohr v. American Auto Ins. Co., 2004 WL 533475 (N.D. Ill. 2004) — factual issue |
| Indiana | Matching required | Erie Ins. Exchange v. Sams, 20 N.E.3d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) — matching required |
| Iowa | Matching required | Iowa Admin. Code 191-15.44(507B) |
| Kentucky | Matching required | 806 Ky. Admin. Regs. 12:095 |
| Michigan | Matching limited | Bernert v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2012 WL 1060089 (E.D. Mich. 2012) — a common-construction provision did not require matching |
| Minnesota | Matching required | Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass'n v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6223454 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013), aff'd 857 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2014) — matching required |
| Missouri | Matching required | Alessi v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 464 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) — matching required |
| Nebraska | Matching required | Neb. Admin. Code tit. 210, ch. 60, §010 |
| Ohio | Matching required | Ohio Admin. Code 3901-1-54 |
| Pennsylvania | Matching limited | Greene v. USAA, 936 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2007) — matching not required; factual issue |
| Rhode Island | Matching required | R.I. Admin. Code 11-5-73:9 |
| Tennessee | Matching required | Hutcherson v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins., 1986 WL 9608 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) — insurer required to replace the entire paint job to match |
| Utah | Matching required | Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13(1)(b) |
Texas, Colorado and Georgia are not in the table, and they are three of the biggest hail and roof markets in the country. Adjusters there argue matching from the policy itself: replacement with material of “like kind and quality”, backed by the NAIC model standard above. The lookup gives that paragraph for any state without a rule.
Source: the state-by-state appendix of “Matching in Replacement Cost Homeowners Insurance Policies” (Rutgers Law School for United Policyholders, April 2016). Rules change; confirm the current text before citing. Use the supplement builder for the rest of the scope.
Questions
- Does my insurance have to match siding?
- In about ten states a regulation or statute says yes: when replacement items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer must replace enough to restore a reasonably uniform appearance. Several more states reach the same result through court decisions. Pick the state in the tool to see the exact rule.
- What is the line of sight rule?
- Iowa's regulation (Iowa Admin. Code 191-15.44) requires replacing as much as necessary for a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight. It is narrower than the 'all items in the area' language some states use.
- Can I sue under a matching regulation?
- Usually not directly. Courts in California (Rattan v. USAA) and Kentucky (Woods Apartments) held the regulations create no private right of action. They are still the standard the insurer is supposed to follow, and evidence of unreasonable claim handling.
- What if my state has no matching rule?
- Argue the policy itself: replacement cost with material of 'like kind and quality'. Courts in Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana and D.C. read that language to require matching. The tool falls back to that argument and the NAIC model standard.
Matching denied on a claim you are working?
We write the full-elevation or full-room estimate with the matching basis on the line, free for the first one.
All tools on this page are informational and not legal or insurance advice. More free tools