ACV, by Definition, Requires Depreciation from Replacement Cost
Post 5027
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUwdsX7z and at https://lnkd.in/gxmkMQcB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
This case is a putative class action concerning a commercial property insurance policy. Schoening Investment, LP alleges that The Cincinnati Casualty Company breached its insurance policy by undervaluing an actual cash value (ACV) payment for a covered partial structural loss to one of its properties in Schoening Investment, LP v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, No. 1:24-cv-137, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division (March 13, 2025)
Key Allegations:
Schoening contended that the policy does not allow Cincinnati Casualty to deduct any amount for depreciation from the ACV payments due for partial structural losses. Schoening specifically challenged whether the insurer is entitled to deduct depreciation from such payments at all.
Legal Standard:
This putative class action concerned a commercial property insurance policy and a not uncommon grievance-an insured’s belief that its insurance policy entitles it to more money from its insurer than it received. Specifically, Plaintiff Schoening Investment, LP alleges (on behalf of itself and a putative class of insureds in Kentucky and Arizona) that Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company breached its insurance policy by undervaluing an actual cash value (ACV) payment it made to Schoening after Schoening suffered a covered partial structural loss to one of its properties. (By partial structural loss, the Court (and Schoening) means structural damage where estimated repair costs are lower than estimated replacement costs.)
The Court applied Kentucky law, which holds that the interpretation of unambiguous terms in an insurance policy is a matter of law. The Court concluded that Schoening’s depreciation-based challenge fail under the unambiguous policy terms.
Schoening contended that Cincinnati Casualty breached its contract in one very specific way. According to Schoening, the policy at issue does not allow Cincinnati Casualty to deduct any amount for depreciation from the otherwise-applicable ACV payments that would be due for partial structural losses. All Schoening challenges here is whether the insurer is entitled to deduct depreciation from such payments at all.
Cincinnati Casualty contended that the policy terms are sufficiently unambiguous on the depreciation issue that the Court should dismiss the suit. The Court agreed with Cincinnati Casualty.
THE VALUATION PROVISION
The Policy informs the reader that phrases in quotation marks (like “Actual Cash Value”) “have special meaning,” as set forth in “Section G. Definitions.” According to the Definitions Section, “‘Actual cash value’ means replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence.”
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must present sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
THE UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY TERMS
Schoening asks the Court to manufacture a third valuation method for the Policy which it cannot do. Schoening seeks an ACV-based payment without a depreciation deduction that would mean that, even without selecting the optional replacement cost coverage, insureds covered under the Policy for full replacement cost or RCV.
Further, because the insureds who select the optional replacement-cost coverage can elect to receive ACV-based payments before making repairs Schoening’s reading of ACV would entitle them to receive full-replacementcost-based payments (i.e., without depreciation) without in fact making any repairs directly contravening the Policy wording.
All told, the Court found that, under the unambiguous Policy language, Cincinnati Casualty may deduct depreciation of materials from ACV calculations when evaluating partial structural loss claims.
The Optional Coverage under the Policy provides only two valuation methods-replacement cost and ACV. The latter, ACV, “means replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence.” Replacement cost (RCV) is payment “without deduction for depreciation.” Unless and until an insured repairs or replaces a covered property, the replacement-cost based measure is not available to that insured.
Court’s Decision:
The Court agreed with Cincinnati Casualty that the policy unambiguously allows the insurer to deduct depreciation from ACV-based payments for partial structural losses. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Schoening’s complaint with prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
Schoening’s proposed reading would effectively grant insureds who did not pay for nor select the replacement cost coverage, a cost greater than the premium when RCV is not selected, an entitlement to replacement cost coverage, contrary to the policy terms. Schoening tried, by filing a class action, to change the wording of the policy and give the class a benefit for which they did not pay. The court refused to rewrite the policy whose terms and conditions the plaintiff class accepted when it acquired the policy.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
