About the Course
Introduction
This CLE webinar will discuss the issue of matching in property damage claims, a very misunderstood issue and one deserving of more attention than it sometimes gets. The panel will address how the issue arises, policy language, matching statutes and regulations, recent case law where matching was required or limited, matching in appraisals, and other current developments.
Description
Standard replacement cost property insurance policies typically require insurers to repair or replace a policyholder's damaged property with "material of like kind and quality" or with "similar material" or "comparable material and quality … used for the same purpose." The "matching" problem arises in the context of partial damage when new materials will not match (or fit) the remaining undamaged sections, leaving its appearance and value materially impaired. Must the insurer replace all or some of the undamaged portions of the property (for example, roof, siding, cabinets, windows, etc.) so that the new and old will match and present a reasonable or uniform appearance?
The resolution of the matching issue will be affected by whether the relevant jurisdiction has a matching statute or relies on common law, what the policy says about matching obligations, and the interplay between the statute or case law and the policy language. Insurers often push back on matching claims if the property lacked uniformity before the loss, if replacing all items would create an unjust windfall, or if the insured is insisting on perfection. Although matching statutes usually do not create a private right of action making enforcement difficult, a matching dispute can quickly become a bad faith quagmire. Compromise and negotiation strategies that prioritize the clients goals are needed.
Who decides matching issues—a judge, a jury, or an appraiser—may also have a significant impact on the outcome. Counsel wanting the issue decided by a judge may cast matching as a coverage issue which turns on policy interpretation. Counsel preferring a jury or appraiser may urge that matching—what something looks like—is a question of fact. While personal dissatisfaction with a repair may not be enough to require matching, counsel must have objective evidence about what does or does not amount to a lack of reasonable or uniform appearance and qualified experts to provide those opinions and state whether lack of matching decreases the value of the property.
Listen as our distinguished and experienced panel discusses the principle of matching and various ways of resolving the issue.
Presented By
Mr. Brown is a shareholder in Anderson Kill's New York office and a member of the firm's Insurance Recovery Group. He represents corporate policyholders in a wide range of coverage disputes, including third-party matters involving coverage for tort claims, directors and officers and professional liability claims, and first-party coverage disputes for losses related to criminal acts and property damage. Mr. Brown has represented clients in matters including a D&O insurance case seeking tens of millions of dollars in defense costs incurred in a high-stakes litigation; professional liability claims on behalf of accounting firms, law firms, private equity firms, and public officials; an arbitration seeking recovery of millions of dollars in losses caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria; and complex coverage litigation for alleged asbestos liabilities. He is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, where he was an associate editor of the Maryland Law Review.
Mr. Butler's primary practice area is coverage defense. He handles mostly first-party property insurance coverage defense cases and extra-contractual matters. Mr. Butler is a recognized authority on property insurance coverage issues. He lectures on the subject and related issues often, including regulatory and legislative changes in condominium insurance coverage and Florida first-party property insurance laws, as well as adjusting sinkhole claims and fraud in natural disaster claims like sinkholes, hurricanes, and floods. Mr. Butler frequently speaks for various insurance companies and organizations like the South Florida Claims Association and the Property Loss Research Bureau.
Mr. Walker is a San Diego plaintiff attorney who represents individuals in serious personal injury and major property damage cases, including one of the largest flooding lawsuits in San Diego County history. He has practiced law for almost 20 years. Before founding his firm in 2015, Mr. Walker spent years on the other side, defending insurance companies in complex claims litigation, including Hurricane Katrina cases. He appears regularly as a legal analyst on local news, speaks frequently at continuing legal education programs, and contributes to the Continuing Education of the Bar. Mr. Walker currently serves on the Board of Directors of Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, one of California’s largest and most influential plaintiff-side trial lawyer organizations, and on the Parish Council of Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church. His forthcoming book on insurance settlements, under contract with James Publishing, is scheduled for release in 2027.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Thursday, July 23, 2026
- schedule
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
I. How the issue arises
II. Policy language
III. Statutes and regulations
IV. Case law
A. Matching required
B. Matching limited
V. Who decides matching issues
VI. What evidence and experts are needed for insurers or policyholders
VII. Matching in appraisal
The panel will review these and other important issues:
- How should the parties determine the scope of the required replacement area?
- Can the carrier contract around a matching statute/regulation?
- Who decides matching disputes—adjuster, appraiser, or court?
- What evidence and experts are needed to prove lack of a "reasonable" or "uniform" appearance?
Related Courses
Insurance Exclusions for AI Liabilities: Avoiding Pitfalls of Unsettled Policy Definitions; New ISO Endorsements
Thursday, April 16, 2026
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
Bad Faith and Weather Claims: Concurrent Causation, Ensuing Losses, Extent of Damages, Role of Experts
Thursday, March 26, 2026
1:00 p.m. ET/10:00 a.m. PT
