Property insurance coverage disputes usually flip not on whether or not a loss occurred, however on how the loss is valued. The current federal case of Elenz v. State Farm Hearth & Casualty Firm serves as a reminder {that a} policyholder can nonetheless lose, even with proof of storm harm, if the correct proof of precise money worth is lacking. It additionally reinforces an essential level I not too long ago mentioned about New Jersey insurance coverage regulation, famous in Public Adjusters: Precise Money Worth and Full Skilled Experiences are Important.
The underside line is that property harm estimates ought to embrace an precise money worth determine when repairs or replacements haven’t been accomplished. Many courts won’t enable restoration of alternative price until the insured satisfies the coverage’s restore or alternative situation, even when the insurer has underpaid or breached its obligations.
Sherri Elenz sued State Farm after a January 2023 storm allegedly broken her dwelling, together with its rafters. She had not accomplished repairs by the point of litigation. State Farm moved for abstract judgment, contending that Elenz lacked competent proof on two fronts. First, its engineer discovered that the irregularities within the rafters had been attributable to defective development, not wind. With no certified skilled to determine that the storm induced the harm, Elenz couldn’t show causation. Second, and extra considerably, State Farm argued that as a result of Elenz had not repaired the property, her restoration was restricted by the coverage to precise money worth, which requires proof of depreciation. Her contractor’s report confirmed solely alternative price figures and no calculation of depreciation.
Mississippi courts have repeatedly held that depreciation is a vital part of damages for unrepaired objects and normally requires skilled testimony. State Farm additionally argued there was no foundation for punitive or unhealthy religion damages as a result of it had an controversial motive for its place and had already paid greater than $30,000 on the declare.
Elenz opposed the movement by providing a report from an engineer, Jerald Montgomery, who inspected the property and opined that the cracks within the rafters and different indicators of lateral stress had been in keeping with tornadic winds, not with long-standing development defects. She relied on estimates ready by her contractors for alternative price, arguing that depreciation may very well be established by means of lay testimony concerning the age, life expectancy, and situation of the property. She additionally pointed to State Farm’s personal estimate, which used a easy components to depreciate sure objects and capped depreciation at 80 p.c.
The choose rejected these arguments and granted abstract judgment in favor of State Farm on all claims. The courtroom dismissed Elenz’s punitive, unhealthy religion, and estoppel claims as a result of she didn’t meaningfully handle State Farm’s arguments and since the proof confirmed the insurer had an controversial foundation for its resolution.
As to the contract declare, the courtroom emphasised that because the repairs had not been accomplished, the coverage restricted restoration to precise money worth. Depreciation, the courtroom defined, just isn’t an optionally available determine however a required factor of that calculation, and Mississippi precedent makes clear that skilled testimony is usually mandatory to determine it.
The courtroom additional discovered that Elenz’s suggestion that she might depend on an 80 p.c cap from State Farm’s personal estimate or on her personal proof of the property’s age and situation was unsupported by the coverage or case regulation. As a result of she had no admissible proof to quantify depreciation, her declare failed as a matter of regulation. The courtroom didn’t even attain State Farm’s causation argument as a result of the absence of proof of damages was dispositive.
The lesson for policyholders, public adjusters, and their counsel in Mississippi is obvious: When a loss includes property that has not been repaired or changed, the declare should embrace an precise money worth determine supported by competent proof. Substitute price standing alone just isn’t sufficient, even when the insurer has been sluggish to pay or has undervalued the declare.
Courts in lots of jurisdictions, not simply Mississippi, require proof of each components of the components: the fee to restore or substitute and the depreciation that have to be subtracted. In complicated circumstances, or the place structural parts are concerned, skilled testimony is usually important to fulfill that burden. Estimates ought to due to this fact embrace depreciation and current an precise money worth quantity every time the work has not been accomplished. With out it, even a seemingly robust declare can lose.
For these on this matter, I counsel studying Precise Money Worth Estimates Want To Be Made In Florida—How A Church Misplaced To Church Mutual, and ACV, RCV, and GCOP: Why the Ninth Circuit’s Ruling Issues to Claims Professionals and Policyholders.
Thought For The Day
“Don’t be embarrassed by your failures, study from them and begin once more.”
—Richard Branson
Elenz v. State Farm Hearth & Cas. Co., No. 3:24-CV-253, 2025 WL 2637670 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 12, 2025). (See additionally, State Farm’s Movement for Abstract Judgment, and Policyholder’s Response to the Movement for Abstract Judgment)
