Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Matching Statutes by State
Design by Chris Nicholls
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Matching Requirements:
In Alabama, insurance contracts are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
Citations:
Pritchett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 834 So. 2d 785 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)
Matching Requirements:
Any person adjusting, negotiating, or settling a property claim on the basis of replacement cost. . . for a loss that requires replacement of property, and if the replacement property does not match in quality, color or size, shall replace the property in the area to provide for a reasonably uniform appearance; this paragraph applies to interior and exterior losses; the claimant is not require to pay for betterment or any other cost except for the applicable deductible.
Citations:
3 Alaska Admin. Code 26.090
Matching Requirements:
The reasonable expectations doctrine for insurance claims states that when insurance terms cannot be understood by the reasonably intelligent consumer, the court will interpret them in light of reasonable expectations of the average insured. Thus, matching can be enforced when contract allows for it or when consumer reasonably believes contract allows for it, even when it does not.
Citations:
Hanks v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73186 (D. Ariz. 2013)
Matching Requirements:
In the face of an ambiguous policy, a court will construe the policy liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
Citations:
Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co. v. Southwest Ark. Elec. Coop. Corp., 2014 Ark. App. 364 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014)
Matching Requirements:
When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This rule applies to both first-party residential and commercial property claims.
Citations:
10 Cal. Code Regs. 2695.9
Matching Requirements:
Words and phrases in an insurance policy are ascribed their plain meaning unless the language is ambiguous. Contracts should be interpreted in a manner that allows maximum effectiveness when viewing the policy as a whole.
Citations:
Hamlet Condo. Ass’n v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 Colo. Dist. LEXIS 1433 (Col. Dist. Ct. 2017)
Matching Requirements:
When a covered loss for real property requires the replacement of an item or items and the replacement item or items do not match adjacent items in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all such items with material of like kind and quality so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This provision shall apply to interior and exterior covered losses.
Citations:
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §38a-316e
Matching Requirements:
When an insurance policy is found to be ambiguous, the rule of contra preferentum requires that the policy be interpreted against the insurance company that drafted it. Stating policy terms in clear and unambiguous language is the insurer’s responsibility.
Citations:
O’Brien v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 785 A2d 281 (Del. 2001)
Matching Requirements:
An ambiguous policy provision requires that any doubts be resolved in favor of the insured, including those that could be read to require matching.
Citations:
Nat’l Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 82 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D.D.C. 2015)
Matching Requirements:
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.
Citations:
Fla. Stat. §626.9744
Matching Requirements:
If the construction is doubtful, that which goes most strongly against the party executing the instrument or undertaking the obligation is generally to be preferred.
Citations:
Ga. Code Ann. §13-2-2
Matching Requirements:
A well settled general principle of insurance law is that, should ambiguities exist in the language of the policy provisions, they are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured.
Citations:
Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Heights Enterprises, 1998 Guam 5 (Guam 1997)
Matching Requirements:
Where there is an ambiguity in a written contract, parol evidence is admissible to explain the intent of the parties, and intent becomes a question for the trier of fact. In interpreting contracts, ambiguous terms are construed against the party who drafted the contract.
Citations:
DiTullio v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., 616 P.2d 221, 223 (1980)
Matching Requirements:
If the court or jury is unable to determine the intent of the parties, then the ambiguity should be resolved against the party who used the ambiguity in drafting the contract.
Citations:
Werry v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 540 P.2d 792 (1975)
Matching Requirements:
Where an insurance contract is ambiguous and it is not resolved by other evidence, the court must adopt any reasonable interpretation the policyholder suggests.
Citations:
Tribune Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 715 N.E.2d 263, 269 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)
Matching Requirements:
Ambiguous provisions in insurance policies are construed in favor of the insured, particularly those provisions that limit or exclude certain coverages.
Citations:
Erie Ins. Exch. v. Sams, 20 N.E.3d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)
Matching Requirements:
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 provision applies to both interior and exterior losses. Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis. The insured shall not bear costs over the applicable deductible, if any.
Citations:
Iowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.44(507B)
Matching Requirements:
When interpreting ambiguous policy terms, the interpretation most favorable to the insured must prevail.
Citations:
Graves v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95127 (D. Kan. 2015)
Matching Requirements:
If a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not reasonably match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This applies to interior and exterior losses for Fire-and-Extended-Coverage-Type Policies with replacement cost coverage. The insured shall not bear costs over the applicable deductible.
The commissioner's Advisory Opinion, dated 17 Oct. 2023, states that the department interprets ""area"" to mean the entirety of a part used for a specific purpose, including but not limited to an entire roof, an entire contiguous interior carpet, or an entire contiguous interior tile floor. The opinion also states that the statutory language does not permit a “line of sight” rule to be applied when replacing portions of a roof or other “area.”
Citations:
806 Ky. Admin. Regs. 12:095, sec. 9(1)(b)
Matching Requirements:
The measure of property damage is the cost of restoring the damaged property to its former condition, where the thing damaged can be adequately repaired, unless the costs of such repairs is disproportionate to the property’s value or constitutes economic waste. Requiring full rather than partial replacement is not manifestly unreasonable.
Citations:
North American Land Development v. Higginbotham, et al., (771 So. 2d 245, La. Ct. App. 2000)
Matching Requirements:
Extrinsic evidence is allowed if language is ambiguous. Interpretation is for a jury to decide.
Citations:
Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd., 828 A.2d 210 (Me. 2003)
Matching Requirements:
The replacement of damaged siding with new siding may result in mismatched siding between the existing siding and the newly replaced siding. In such cases of mismatching, settlement options include moving undamaged siding from other areas of the house to replace damaged siding, replacement of both damaged and undamaged siding on one or more sides of a house, replacement of all siding, and/or an allowance to reflect diminution in value of the house caused by the mismatch. The MIA does not interpret a replacement cost policy to require in every instance, replacement of all siding including undamaged siding in order to minimize mismatching, insurers whose settlement practices fail to take into account major differences in color shades, textures, or siding dimensions as provided above may be subject to action under Section 230A. Bulletin 18-23 overrides bulletin 97-1 in light of changes to policy language. MIA states that most policies specifically exclude mismatch claims, and that the language of the policy governs the rights, duties and obligations of the insurer to the insured. In absence of specific exclusions, the language of bulletin 97-1 still applies.
Citations:
MIA Bulletin No. 97-1; Bulletin 18-23
Matching Requirements:
An insurance policy must be interpreted in the plain meaning of the language and construed in the sense that the insured will be able to understand the scope of the policy coverage.
Citations:
McLaughlin v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 973 N.E.2d 685 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Matching Requirements:
If extrinsic evidence cannot clarify an ambiguous contract, the jury should find against the party who wrote the contract and in favor of the nondrafting party.
Citations:
Klapp v. United Ins. Grp. Agency, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 447, 455 (Mich. 2003)
Matching Requirements:
The phrase “comparable material and quality” does not necessarily require an exact color match, but the replacement material must be a reasonable color match to the existing material.
Citations:
Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 857 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2014)
Matching Requirements:
Ambiguities in insurance contracts are read to favor the insured, but that principle does not permit the creation of ambiguity where there is none.
Citations:
Boteler v. State Farm Cas. Ins. Co., 876 So. 2d 1067 (Miss. 2004)
Matching Requirements:
Coverage provisions in an insurance policy are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured to provide the broadest possible coverage. Matching is not required by statute, but if a policy can be reasonably interpreted to require matching, it will be enforced.
Citations:
Alessi v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 529, 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)
Matching Requirements:
It is the position of the department that when a loss requires replacement of building materials that the materials must be replaced with similar quality, kind, texture, and colored materials so there is a reasonable match with any existing materials. In the event that materials which meet these criteria are not available, the existing materials must be replaced to achieve a match. This provision applies to interior and exterior losses.
Citations:
Advisory Memorandum, 7/6/2009
Matching Requirements:
When a loss requires replacement of items and the replacement items do not reasonably match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This applies to both interior and exterior losses under fire and extended coverage policies. The insured shall not bear cost over any applicable deductible.
Citations:
210 Neb. Admin. Code Ch. 60, 010
Matching Requirements:
If an Insurance policy has any ambiguous terms, they will be interpreted so the policy will effectuate the insured’s reasonable expectations.
Citations:
Century Sur. Co. v. Casino West, Inc., 329 P.3d 614 (Nev. 2014)
Matching Requirements:
If more than one reasonable interpretation is possible, and one of those indicates coverage, the policy is ambiguous and will be interpreted in favor of the insured.
Citations:
Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 7 A.3d 1215 (N.H. 2010)
Matching Requirements:
Insurance policies should be construed liberally in favor of insureds to the full extent fair interpretation will allow.
Citations:
Fortunato v. Highlands Ins. Group, 785 A.2d 963, 965 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2001)
Matching Requirements:
As the parties to a contract of insurance lack equal bargaining power, any ambiguities in an insurance policy should be construed in favor of the insured as a matter of public policy.
Citations:
United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 285 P.3d 644 (N.M. 2012)
Matching Requirements:
When an insurance policy is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
Citations:
Ferraro v. N. Country Ins., 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3207 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2005)
Matching Requirements:
If a nontechnical word has more than one meaning in its ordinary usage, and there is no clear context to indicate such a meaning, the term must be given the meaning most favorable to the policyholder.
Citations:
Rouse v. Williams Realty Bldg. Co., 544 S.E.2d 609 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
Matching Requirements:
In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. The promisor is presumed to be such party.
Citations:
N.D. Cent. Code Ann. §9-07-19
Matching Requirements:
When an interior or exterior loss requires replacement of an item and the replaced item does not match the quality, color or size of the item suffering the loss, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as to result in a reasonably comparable appearance. This provision applies to fire and extended coverage policies.
Citations:
Ohio Admin. Code 3901-1-54
Matching Requirements:
An ambiguous provision in an insurance policy will be construed according to the understanding of a reasonable person in the insured’s position, even if it isn’t necessarily what the drafter/insurer intended.
Citations:
Andres v. Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 227 P.3d 1102 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009)
Matching Requirements:
If, after looking to a term’s plain meaning and context within the policy, an ambiguous provision remains ambiguous, the court will resolve any doubts in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
Citations:
Gonzales v. Farmers Ins. Co., 196 P.3d 1 (Or. 2008)
Matching Requirements:
Interpreting an insurance policy is a matter for the court, not a jury. When a policy is ambiguous, the court will construe it in favor of the insured and against the insurer, because the insurer is the party that drafted the policy.
Citations:
Greene v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 936 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)
Matching Requirements:
The interpretation of obscure stipulations of a contract must not favor the party who introduced the obscurity.
Citations:
31 L.P.R.A. § 3478
Matching Requirements:
When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all such items so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This applies to interior and exterior losses. The first-party claimant shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible, if any.
Citations:
230 RICR 020-40-2
Matching Requirements:
When the terms of an insurance policy create ambiguity, the court must interpret those terms liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
Citations:
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 781 S.E.2d 137 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015)
Matching Requirements:
If an insurance policy’s provisions are fairly susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rules are liberally construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
Citations:
Zoo Props., LLP v. Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co., 797 N.W.2d 779, 780 (S.D. 2011)
Matching Requirements:
When a loss requires replacement of items, and the replacements do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace items so as to conform 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.
Citations:
Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 0780-01-05-.10
Matching Requirements:
If an insurance policy is ambiguous…it will be interpreted in favor of the insured.
Citations:
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Maxey, 110 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App. 2003)
Matching Requirements:
When a loss requires replacement or repair of items and the repaired or replaced items do not match in color, texture, or size, the insurer shall repair or replace items so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. This applies to interior and exterior losses under a fire or extended coverage type policy. The insured is only responsible for the applicable deductible.
Citations:
Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13
Matching Requirements:
When a covered loss requires the replacement of an item or items and the replacement item or items do not match adjacent items in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace such items with material of like kind and quality so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight, taking into account natural breaks. This applies to exterior and interior partial losses. The insured shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible, if any.
Citations:
CVR 21-020-008
Matching Requirements:
If a court finds the policy or part of it is ambiguous, then the ambiguity must be resolved in terms most favorable to the insured.
Citations:
Guardian Ins. v. Rahhal, 63 V.I. 420 (V.I. 2015)
Matching Requirements:
When two or more interpretations of a policy provision are reasonable, the court will adopt the interpretation most favorable to the insured.
Citations:
TravCo Ins. Co. v. Ward, 736 S.E.2d 321 (Va. 2012)
Matching Requirements:
Where a clause in an insurance policy is ambiguous, the meaning and construction most favorable to the insured must be applied, even if different from the insurer’s intentions.
Citations:
Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 P.3d 790, 793 (Wash. 2015)
Matching Requirements:
When policy language is exclusionary, it will be strictly construed against the insurer to support the provision of indemnity for the insured.
Citations:
Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 745 S.E.2d 508 (W. Va. 2013)
Matching Requirements:
If the language of an insurance policy is ambiguous, it should be resolved in favor of coverage.
Citations:
Wildin v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 638 N.W.2d 87, 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)
Matching Requirements:
When the language of an insurance contract is ambiguous, the policy must be construed strictly against the insurer.
Citations:
Sonnett v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 309 P.3d 799 (Wyo. 2013)
