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
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
