Minnesota Statute Does not Require Insurer to Pay to Bring Church Property up to Code From Damage Predating Loss
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gCg-xeCi and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWDAee5m and at https://lnkd.in/gXvrZxyM and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4350 posts.
St. Matthews Church of God and Christ (St. Matthews) is located in St. Paul, Minnesota sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) who insured St. Matthews. The policy provided replacement cost coverage for damage to St. Matthews’s buildings.
In St. Matthews Church of God and Christ v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. A21-0240, Supreme Court of Minnesota (November 23, 2022) St. Matthews sought payment for damaged masonry wall when covered peril only damaged drywall covering the masonry that was cracked as a result of old age.
FACTS
In June 2017, a storm damaged the property of St. Matthews, including the building’s drywall. State Farm agreed to cover repair costs for the damaged property caused by the storm, including removal and replacement of the damaged drywall. When the damaged drywall was removed, cracks in the masonry were discovered. There is no dispute that the cracks in the masonry preexisted the storm. However, because the cracks in the masonry violated the city’s building code, the City of St. Paul (City) would not allow St. Matthews to replace the drywall without also repairing the masonry. St. Matthews requested that State Farm reimburse it for the cost of repairing the masonry.
At issue is the interpretation and application of Minn. Stat. § 65A.10, subd. 1 (2020) (“the statute”). The statute requires replacement cost insurance to cover the cost of repairing any “damaged property in accordance with the minimum code as required by state or local authorities.” In “the case of a partial loss,” replacement cost insurance is required to cover only “the damaged portion of the property.”
St. Matthews’s policy provided replacement cost coverage, meaning that, in the event of a loss, the insurer agreed to compensate for that loss without taking into account depreciation. State Farm’s typical policy does not require it to cover the cost of bringing property that is lost or damaged up to code. But the policy issued to St. Matthews included a Minnesota Endorsement, which states, in relevant part:
"If this coverage is provided on a replacement cost basis we will pay the increased cost of replacing, rebuilding, repairing or demolishing any building in accordance with the minimum code in force at the time of loss as required by state or local authorities, when the loss or damage is caused by a Covered Cause Of Loss. In case of a partial loss to the covered property, we will pay only for the damaged portion of the property." (emphasis added)
By December 2018, State Farm paid St. Matthews $107,053, an amount that included the cost of replacing and repairing the drywall.
St. Matthews was required to obtain a building permit from the City to make the necessary repairs, including replacing the drywall. The City was concerned about the defects in the existing masonry wall which rendered the wall out of code. St. Matthews subsequently requested State Farm to pay the cost of bringing the masonry up to code. In response, State Farm hired a consultant to evaluate the damaged masonry and determine the cause of damage. The consultant concluded that the “cracked and out-of-plumb condition . . . was a longterm condition unrelated to the storm ….”
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm.
ANALYSIS
The parties agree that the damaged property at issue is a partial loss and that, before the drywall can be repaired, St. Paul’s city code requires that the masonry be repaired sufficiently to bring it in accordance with minimum code.
The statutory language “[i]n the case of a partial loss . . . this coverage applies only to the damaged portion of the property” is susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation. In the event of a partial loss, the insurer’s obligation is limited to bringing up to code that “portion of the property” that was damaged.
The Supreme Court concluded that the statute means that, when a partial loss like St. Matthews suffered occurs, State Farm’s obligation to bring the damaged portion of the property up to minimum code is limited to repairs necessary to bring up to code that part of the property that was damaged in the insured event. Since it was undisputed that only the drywall was damaged in the storm. It was also undisputed that the masonry was damaged earlier as a result of a different, unknown cause. Consequently, State Farm was not required to pay for repairs to bring the masonry up to code under the statute.
Contrary to St. Matthews’s assertion that the drywall and the masonry were parts of a single damaged item: the wall; which includes both the drywall and the masonry, the masonry wall was independent of the masonry to which it was attached.
All parties agreed that the damage to the masonry was not caused or impacted by the storm. Accordingly, the damage to the masonry was not independently covered by State Farm’s policy. Viewing the project from the perspective of a drywall installer there was nothing in the condition of the masonry that prevented the installation of new drywall.
The Supreme Court concluded that under a plain reading of the statute in the case of a partial loss, replacement cost coverage applies only to the damaged portion of the property covered by a cause of loss. Only the drywall was damaged because of the storm, but the masonry was not. Therefore, only the damaged drywall is subject to the statute’s code-compliance provision.
Under the statute, when a partial loss occurs, an insurer’s obligation to bring the damaged portion of the property up to minimum code is limited to repairs necessary to bring up to code only that part of the property that was damaged in the insured event.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance requires, by definition, to respond only to a contingent or unknown event. It cannot, and should not, respond to damage that preceded the date the policy came into effect from causes that were not caused by a peril insured against. Since the only damage by the storm was to the drywall and since both parties agreed that the damage to the masonry was not caused by the storm that damaged the drywall. Unfortunately for the church it did not acquire code compliance coverage and the statute it relied on was not as broad as the church desired.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Go to substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
By Barry Zalma
. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
