Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted where the policy did not cover full roof replacement under the circumstances.

The plaintiffs had a homeowner’s insurance policy with the defendant that covered the plaintiffs’ residence. The residence was subject to deed restrictions imposed by the homeowners’ association, including requirements that any roof that needed repair must be re-roofed in its entirety; partial or patch roofing was not permitted. Following a storm that caused wind damage to the plaintiffs’ roof, the plaintiffs filed a claim with the defendant, who refused to pay for the complete replacement of the roof, providing reimbursement only for the cost of repairing the damaged portion. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation and bad faith. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. With respect to their breach of contract claim, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant was obligated to pay for full replacement of the roof because the policy language was ambiguous and because the Ohio Administrative Code required roof replacement. The court ruled that the additional cost of complying with the home association’s standards was not covered by the policy. The court also ruled that the Ohio Administrative Code states: “When an 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.” Citing this regulation, the plaintiffs argued that the roof was not repairable and that the additional cost was covered in accordance with the Administrative Code. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ argument failed since the Administrative Code also provides that “nothing in this rule shall be construed to create or imply a private cause of action for violation of this rule.” As a result, the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim was dismissed. The plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claim was also dismissed since they had not specifically requested the full roof replacement coverage at issue and because there was no evidence that they had ever sought or were ever offered advice regarding their insurance coverage. Finally, the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim was also dismissed since the policy did not cover full roof replacement under the circumstances and because the defendant had a reasonable justification for refusing to pay for full replacement.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter 2013