Actual Cash Value or Replacement Cost on Farm Outbuilding?

Our farmowners client is covered on a American Association of Insurance Services (AAIS) policy. Our insured has suffered a wind loss that destroyed one of the structures on his farm. The insurer has offered an actual cash value settlement under coverage B (related private structures), and we believe it should be settled on a replacement cost basis.

The insurer has taken the position that this structure was a farm outbuilding (chicken house) converted to a garage and should have been insured as a normal outbuilding (ACV). When we applied for replacement cost coverage, we sent pictures showing the structure as a garage. If the insurer felt it should have been written as an outbuilding, they had the pictures and should have made such a request at the time the policy was issued.

The insurer has since paid the loss on an ACV basis. The adjuster says this building does not qualify as a garage and that the actual cash value figures are final. He will not even consider replacement cost figures.

The policy implies that the insured must rebuild to get replacement cost. Our insured is going to rebuild, but not just a private garage. He is going to rebuild a pole structure that will be used as an implement building and a place to house his automobiles. The adjuster is also implying that if the insured does not rebuild the same type building, replacement cost would not apply.

Ohio Subscriber

If, as you say, the company underwriter knew that he or she was accepting—under Coverage B—a converted chicken house, then the company is obliged to adjust that loss according to the procedure laid out for coverage B in the conditions—replacement cost.

 We realize that the definition of property covered might contain an "out" for the insurer. That provision says that coverage B does not apply to "buildings designed to be used for farming purposes, whether or not such buildings are currently used in connection with farming operations." However, that would apply only in the case of unscheduled outbuildings. Again, the insurer knew what it was getting and is obligated to honor the promises of the policy.

 Your insured is under no requirement to rebuild the same building as was there previously. Similarly, if the insured's frame, one-story home had been blown away, he could choose to replace it with a brick tri-level. However, what the insurer pays him for the converted chicken house is limited to the least of the following:

1. the coverage limit; 2. the cost to repair or replace the converted chicken house; 3. the amount the insured actually spends to replace the building.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis