In a courtroom conflict that might’ve began on a authorized drama referred to as Legislation & Roofing Order, Bigfoot Co-op took on big Nationwide in a hailstorm roofing dispute that needed to do much less with climate and extra about plywood sheathing and the high-quality print of insurance coverage insurance policies. This roofing dispute was over the valuation of storm injury, code upgrades, the finality of appraisal awards, and the that means of “elevated value of development” sub-limits of protection. The case gives classes on how appraisal awards are seen in Iowa, code compliance, and the necessity to concentrate to the high-quality print relating to protection quantities.
The Iowa federal courtroom granted abstract judgment in favor of Nationwide in a dispute that examined the boundaries of “Elevated Price of Development” (ICC) protection beneath a business property coverage. 1 The guts of the dispute centered on learn how to interpret and apply the ICC provision throughout the insurance coverage coverage.
After the hailstorm struck the insured property in Burlington, Iowa, the Metropolis adopted the 2021 Worldwide Constructing Code (IBC), which imposed new requirements for roof sheathing. The events went to appraisal, and the ultimate award itemized damages into two parts: roughly $455,137.49 for the buildings and $189,380.02 for code-related upgrades. Nationwide paid the total “constructing” quantity and $50,000 for code compliance. Nationwide paid code compliance protection of $10,000 per constructing, citing the coverage’s cap beneath the ICC provision.
The coverage’s ICC clause acknowledged:
Within the occasion of injury by a Lined Explanation for Loss to a constructing that’s Lined Property, we pays the elevated prices incurred to adjust to the minimal requirements of an ordinance or regulation in the middle of restore, rebuilding or alternative of broken elements of that property, topic to the constraints acknowledged in e.(3) by means of e.(9) of this Further Protection.
Below part e.(6), it additional restricted restoration:
If a broken constructing is roofed beneath a blanket Restrict of Insurance coverage which applies to a couple of constructing or merchandise of property, then essentially the most we pays beneath this Further Protection, for that broken constructing, is the lesser of $10,000 or 5% instances the worth of the broken constructing as of the time of loss instances the relevant Coinsurance share.
Bigfoot argued {that a} portion of the code-related estimate didn’t signify “elevated” prices of development however merely mirrored the alternative worth of sheathing that was already put in and compliant with earlier codes. 2 In different phrases, they contended that solely the incremental distinction between the outdated and new code-compliant sheathing, roughly $80,593.48, ought to be topic to the ICC cap. The remaining, they claimed, fell beneath normal alternative value protection and will have been absolutely reimbursed exterior the ICC limitation.
Nevertheless, the courtroom was unpersuaded. It held that the coverage language was unambiguous and that Nationwide accurately utilized the ICC restrict. The courtroom emphasised that the “Code” line merchandise within the appraisal awards was distinct from the “Buildings” portion and clearly represented bills tied to compliance with the 2021 IBC.
The policyholder’s failure to provide particular proof exhibiting that the pre-existing sheathing was immediately broken by the storm proved deadly to their argument. An affidavit from their contractor merely confirmed that the sheathing was changed to fulfill the brand new code, not due to identifiable storm injury. Furthermore, the appraisal award itself made no effort to distinguish between the 2 classes of sheathing work. Thus, the courtroom concluded that the whole $189,380.02 for code compliance fell squarely beneath the ICC clause and was due to this fact restricted to $10,000 per constructing.
The policyholders additionally claimed that the appraisers had exceeded their authority by making a separate “Code” class within the appraisal award, arguing that this improperly created new protection not outlined within the coverage. The courtroom disagreed, reiterating a core precept beneath Iowa regulation: appraisers decide the quantity of loss, not questions of protection. The appraisers’ separation of code and constructing prices was a facilitation machine, permitting the insurer and courtroom to find out later which elements of the loss had been lined and beneath what provisions. The appraisal award even included a disclaimer noting it didn’t interpret or apply coverage provisions, additional undermining the argument that the appraisers overstepped.
For what it’s price, my understanding from quite a few appraisal seminars is that the appraisal panel did exactly what is often taught. They listed a separate merchandise for the constructing alternative and a separate quantity for the code subject. Nationwide then utilized the sub-limit for the reason that panel’s valuation for the Code gadgets was better than the protection limits.
The courtroom’s ruling additionally dispatched the policyholder’s dangerous religion declare. Below Iowa regulation, dangerous religion requires exhibiting that the insurer lacked an affordable foundation for denying the declare and knew or recklessly disregarded that truth. Since Nationwide’s interpretation of the ICC provision was not solely cheap however appropriate, the dangerous religion argument collapsed. The courtroom discovered that even when the coverage had been in some way ambiguous, the dispute would nonetheless have been “pretty debatable,” which shields an insurer from dangerous religion legal responsibility.
A number of essential classes emerge from this case. First, policyholders and public adjusters should have a agency grasp of ICC provisions. These clauses usually include strict sublimits, notably beneath blanket insurance policies masking a number of buildings. Right here, the coverage’s language was crystal clear—$10,000 per constructing—and this cover was enforceable even when the code-compliance work appeared associated to storm injury. Figuring out precisely what the ICC clause covers and what it doesn’t is important when estimating restoration potential.
Second, proof is every little thing. If the policyholder supposed to argue that a part of the code-compliance work was really storm injury topic to full alternative value, it wanted clear, credible proof. My suggestion is to win that argument within the appraisal panel valuation. Imprecise affidavits or post-hoc interpretations won’t carry the day in courtroom. Detailed documentation of storm-related injury to particular parts, particularly when coping with areas that additionally fall beneath constructing code upgrades, is crucial.
Third, the construction and terminology utilized in appraisal awards matter. Even when the policyholder believes that appraisers mustn’t distinguish between code and non-code gadgets, courts will deal with clearly itemized awards as legitimate instruments for making use of coverage limits. The Bigfoot courtroom made it clear that separating damages into classes doesn’t create new protection; it merely clarifies the loss valuation for later authorized determinations.
Lastly, this resolution is a cautionary story for pursuing dangerous religion claims with no strong basis. Courts won’t penalize insurers that comply with unambiguous coverage language. On this case, Nationwide not solely adopted the phrases of the coverage however went additional by paying precisely what the contract required. When the information don’t assist improper conduct, courts received’t manufacture it.
For property insurance coverage professionals and adjusters navigating post-storm claims, the message is evident: precision, documentation, and a cautious studying of coverage phrases are the surest path to correct conduct and restoration.
Thought For The Day
“In concept, there isn’t any distinction between concept and follow. In follow, there may be.”
—Yogi Berra
1 Bigfoot Co-Op A v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No 3:24-cv-00022 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 21, 2025).
2 Bigfoot Co-Op A v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No 3:24-cv-00022 [Doc. #30 Policyholders’ Brief in Support of Response In Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment] (S.D. Iowa).
