State/Territory

Matching Requirements

Citations

Alabama

The policy holders bill of rights included in the Alabama Homeowners Bill of Rights Act does not mention matching. "The case law emphasizes that 'contra proferentem' is generally a rule of last resort that should be applied only when other rules of construction have been exhausted." ("contra proferentem" means ruling against the drafter of the contract).

Ala. Code § 27-22-42; Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), 744 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1260 (S.D. Ala. 2010)

Alaska

"Any person adjusting, negotiating, or settling a property claim on the basis of replacement cost. . . for a loss that requires replacement of property, and if the replacement property does not match in quality, color or size, shall replace the property in the area to provide for a reasonably uniform appearance."

Alaska Admin. Code tit. 3, § 26.090

Arizona

The reasonable expectations doctrine for insurance claims states that when insurance terms cannot be understood by the reasonably intelligent consumer, the court will interpret them in light of reasonable expectations of the average insured. Thus, matching can be enforced when contract allows for it or when consumer reasonably believes contract allows for it, even when it does not.

Hanks v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. CV-12-00880-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 2286966, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2013); Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 742 P.2d 277, 283–84 (1987)

Arkansas

The Supreme Court, George Rose Smith, J., held that instruction that if there was any ambiguity in contract it was to be construed against party who had prepared it was proper.

Triska v. Savage, 239 S.W.2d 1018 (1951).

California

"When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance." (residential and commercial property)

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, § 2695.9

Colorado

"In deciding whether a contract is ambiguous, a court may consider extrinsic evidence bearing on the meaning of the written terms such as evidence of local usage and of the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract. However, the court may not consider the parties' own extrinsic expressions of intent."

Fire Ins. Exch. v. Rael by Rael, 895 P.2d 1139, 1143 (Colo. App. 1995); KN Energy, Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 698 P.2d 769 (Colo.1985).

Connecticut

"When a covered loss for real property requires the replacement of an item or items and the replacement item or items do not match adjacent items in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all such items with material of like kind and quality so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance."

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 38a-316e (West)

Delaware

"To the extent that ambiguity does exist, the doctrine of contra proferentum requires that the language of an insurance contract be construed most strongly against the insurance company that drafted it. "

Steigler v. Insurance Company of North America, 384 A.2d 398, 400 (Del. 1978); Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Del. 1992).

DC

If policy is ambiguous it has "to be construed in insured's favor to require coverage to ensure . . . matching."

Nat'l Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 82 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D.D.C. 2015).

Florida

"When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas." – unless otherwise specified. (property insurance)

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 626.9744 (West)

Georgia

"If the construction is doubtful, that which goes most strongly against the party executing the instrument or undertaking the obligation is generally to be preferred;"

Ga. Code Ann. § 13-2-2 (West)

Guam

Extrinsic evidence is allowed if language is ambiguous. "A well settled general principle of insurance law is that, should ambiguities exist in the language of the policy provisions, they are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured."

Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Heights Enterprises, 1998 Guam 5 (Guam Dec. 11, 1997) citing Stroehmann v. Mutual Life Ins., Co. of New York, 300 U.S. 435, 439, (1937).

Hawaii

"Where there is an ambiguity in a written contract, parol evidence is admissible to explain the intent of the parties, and intent becomes a question for the trier of fact."; "in interpreting contracts, ambiguous terms are construed against the party who drafted the contract."

DiTullio v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., 616 P.2d 221, 223 (1980); Luke v. Gentry Realty, Ltd., 96 P.3d 261, 269 (2004); Yogi v. Hawaii Med. Serv. Ass'n,, 238 P.3d 699, 704 (Ct. App. 2010).

Idaho

"The primary consideration in interpreting an ambiguous term of a contract is a determination of the intentions of the parties, which intentions are to be gleaned from all of the evidence. If the court or jury is unable to determine the intent of the parties, then the ambiguity should be resolved against the party who used the ambiguity in drafting the contract."

Werry v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 540 P.2d 792 (1975); Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Grasmick, 415 P.2d 48 (1966); Luzar v. W. Sur. Co., 692 P.2d 337, 341 (1984).

Illinois

"If the language of the contract is susceptible to more than one meaning, it is ambiguous and a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties."

Air Safety, 706 N.E.2d 882; W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Talton, 997 N.E.2d 784, 788 (Ill. App. 2013)

Indiana

"[a]mbiguous provisions in insurance policies are construed in favor of the insured."

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Sams, 20 N.E.3d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)

Iowa

"When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as is necessary to result in a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight. " (1st party)

Iowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.44(507B)

Kansas

"Where the terms of a policy of insurance are ambiguous or uncertain, conflicting or susceptible of more than one construction, the construction most favorable to the insured must prevail."

Thomas v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 666 P.2d 676, 678 (Kan. 1983).

Kentucky

"If a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not reasonably match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance." (property and casualty)

806 Ky. Admin. Regs. 12:095

Louisiana

"In case of doubt that cannot be otherwise resolved, a provision in a contract must be interpreted against the party who furnished its text. A contract executed in a standard form of one party must be interpreted, in case of doubt, in favor of the other party."; "In case of doubt that cannot be otherwise resolved, a contract must be interpreted against the obligee and in favor of the obligor of a particular obligation."

La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2056; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2057

Maine

Extrinsic evidence is allowed if language is ambiguous. Interpretation is for a jury to decide.

Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises Ltd, 828 A.2d 210 (ME 2003).

Maryland

"If the contract is ambiguous, the court must consider any extrinsic evidence which sheds light on the intentions of the parties at the time of the execution of the contract." "It is a basic principle of contract law that, in construing the language of a contract, ambiguities are resolved against the draftsman of the instrument."

Sy-Lene, 829 A.2d at 547, quoting County Comm'rs of Charles County v. St. Charles Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 784 A.2d 545, 556 (Md. 2001); Burroughs Corp. v. Chesapeake Petroleum & Supply Co., Inc., 384 A.2d 734, 737 (Md. 1978); John L. Mattingly Const. Co. v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 999 A.2d 1066, 1074 (Md. 2010).

Massachusetts

Determining meaning of ambiguous contract is matter of fact for jury. "Among other rules of construction that may aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, one in particular pertains to insurance contracts: namely, that ambiguities are to be constructed against the insurer."

Aftermarket, Inc. v. Worcester Ins. Co., 906 N.E.2d 368 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009); August A. Busch & Co. of Mass., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 158 N.E.2d 351 (Mass. 1959); Hakim v. Massachusetts Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 675 N.E.2d 1161 (Mass. 1997).

Michigan

Parol evidence rule. If a contract is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be relied upon to construe it. If all else fails, contract is interpreted against drafter.

Klapp v. United Ins. Grp. Agency, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 447, 455 (Mich. 2003).

Minnesota

Though there is no statute on this matter yet in Minnesota, if a contract can be reasonably interpreted to require matching it will be enforced.

Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 857 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2014); Trout Brook S. Condo. Ass'n v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 995 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (D. Minn. 2014)

Mississippi

The parol evidence rule "provides that where a document is incomplete parol evidence is admissible to explain the terms but, in no event, to contradict them."

Busching v. Griffin, 542 So.2d 860, 865 (Miss.1989); Epperson v. SOUTHBank, 93 So. 3d 10, 17 (Miss. 2012).

Missouri

"Coverage provisions in an insurance policy are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured to provide the broadest possible coverage." Matching not required by statute, but if a policy can be reasonably interpreted to require matching it will be enforced.

Alessi v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 529, 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Montana

"In cases of uncertainty not removed by parts 1 through 5 of this chapter, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. The promisor is presumed to be that party." (MCA 28-3-101 through MCA 28-3-503 are parts 1 – 5 referred to. They outline standard rules for contract construction.)

Mont. Code Ann. § 28-3-206 (West)

Nebraska

"When a loss requires replacement of items and the replacement items do not reasonably match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. " (fire and extended coverage)

210 Neb. Admin. Code Ch. 60, 010

Nevada

"Any ambiguity . . . should be construed against the drafter."

Anvui, LLC v. G.L. Dragon, LLC, 163 P.3d 405, 407 (Nev. 2007).

New Hampshire

"If the agreement's language is ambiguous, it must be determined, under an objective standard, what the parties, as reasonable people, mutually understood the ambiguous language to mean."

Birch Broad., Inc. v. Capitol Broad. Corp., 13 A.3d 224, 228 (N.H. 2010); In the Matter of Taber–McCarthy & McCarthy, 993 A.2d 240 (N.H. 2010).

New Jersey

"Extrinsic evidence may be used to determine whether a contract is ambiguous" but not "to create an ambiguity where none exists.'

CPS MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P., 940 F. Supp. 2d 141, 154 (D.N.J. 2013)

New Mexico

NM jury instructions in statute: "Where, however, the parties at the time the contract was made had different meanings in mind about [this] [these] term[s], then you shall give that meaning which you find to be most reasonable, taking into consideration all the circumstances."

NMRA, Rule 13-825

New York

"The court must decide, as a matter of law, whether significant contractual ambiguity exists and then interpretation of the ambiguous contract falls to the fact finder."

Giles v. City of New York, 41 F.Supp.2d 308, 318 (S.D.N.Y.1999); AIU N. Am., Inc. v. Caisse Franco Neerlandaise de Cautionnements, 72 F. Supp. 2d 350, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

North Carolina

"[e]xtrinsic evidence may be consulted when the plain language of the contract is ambiguous."

Brown v. Ginn, 640 S.E.2d 787, 790 (N.C. App. 2007); Lynn v. Lynn, 689 S.E.2d 198, 205 (N.C. App. 2010).

North Dakota

"In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. The promisor is presumed to be such party…."

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 9-07-19 (West)

Ohio

"When an interior or exterior loss requires replacement of an item and the replaced item does not match the quality, color or size of the item suffering the loss, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as to result in a reasonably comparable appearance." (property and casualty)

Ohio Admin. Code 3901-1-54

Oklahoma

"If the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it."

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 165 (West)

Oregon

"When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the parties, that sense is to prevail, against either party, in which the party supposed the other understood it. When different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that construction is to be taken which is most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made."

Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42.260 (West)

Pennsylvania

When a provision is ambiguous, the court is to construe that language in favor of the insured; however, when the language unambiguously excludes matching, insurers need not pay for it.

Pellegrino v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV.A. 12-2065, 2013 WL 3878591, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2013); Greene v. United Services Automobile Association, 936 A.2d 1178 (Pa.Super.Ct.2007).

Puerto Rico

"The interpretation of obscure stipulations of a contract must not favor the party occasioning the obscurity."

§ 3478 Interpretation against party causing obscurity, 31 L.P.R.A. § 3478

Rhode Island

"When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all such items so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance." (fire and extended coverage)

R.I. Code R. 11-5-73:9

South Carolina

"Once the court decides the language is ambiguous, evidence may be admitted to show the intent of the parties."

S. Carolina Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 550 S.E.2d 299, 303 (S.C. 2001).

South Dakota

"When there is an ambiguous contract, evidence must be introduced to determine what the intentions of the parties were and . . . such evidence creates a question of fact, which must be resolved by the jury."

Delzer Const. Co. v. South Dakota State Bd., 275 N.W.2d 352, 355 (S.D.1979); N. River Ins. Co. v. Golden Rule Const., Inc., 296 N.W.2d 910, 912 (S.D. 1980). PENDING: 2014 SD H.B. 1054 (NS)

Tennessee

"An ambiguous provision in a contract generally will be construed against the party drafting it. Furthermore, when a contractual provision is ambiguous, a court is permitted to use parol evidence, including the contracting parties' conduct and statements regarding the disputed provision, to guide the court in construing and enforcing the contract."

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tenn. 2006); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Haney, 425 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tenn1968); Vargo v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003) .

Texas

Parol evidence rule. If a contract is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be relied upon to construe it.

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1995); Southland Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Cantu, 399 S.W.3d 558, 580 (Tex. App. 2011).

Utah

"When a loss requires replacement or repair of items and the repaired or replaced items do not match in color, texture, or size, the insurer shall repair or replace items so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. " (fire and extended coverage)

Utah Admin. Code r. R590-190

Vermont

Parol evidence rule. If a contract is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be relied upon to construe it.

Breslauer v. Fayston Sch. Dist., 659 A.2d 1129, 1135 (Vt. 1995)

Virgin Islands

"If it is ambiguous, interpretation is left to the finder of fact to determine in light of extrinsic evidence."

Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 619 F.2d 1001, 1011 (3d Cir.1980).; In re House of Vizia Gold Creations, Inc., 278 B.R. 86, 90 (Bankr. D.V.I. 2002).

Virginia

"When the terms of an agreement are ambiguous, a court will consider parol evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties."

Eure, 561 S.E.2d at 667–68; Tuomala v. Regent Univ., 477 S.E.2d 501, 505 (Va. 1996). Video Zone, Inc. v. KF & F Properties, L.C., 594 S.E.2d 921, 924 (Va. 2004).

Washington

"There is another principle applying to contracts of insurance to the effect that if they are so drawn as to require interpretation and fairly susceptible of two different conclusions, the one will be adopted most favorable to the insured; and will be liberally construed in favor of the object to be accomplished and conditions and provisions therein will be strictly construed against the insurer."

L. J. Dowell, Inc. v. United Pac. Cas. Ins. Co., 72 P.2d 296, 306 (Wash. 1937).

West Virginia

"When reasonable people can differ about the meaning of an insurance contract, the contract is ambiguous, and all ambiguities will be construed in favor of the insured."

D'Annunzio v. Sec.-Connecticut Life Ins. Co., 410 S.E.2d 275, 276 (W. Va. 1991).

Wisconsin

"Of like kind and quality" does not mean identical match. If a policy calls for "like kind and quality," this means something that is reasonably comparable.

Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Union Pac. R. Co., 756 N.W.2d 461, 471 (Wis. App. 2008); Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 768 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. 2009)

Wyoming

"Ambiguous contracts are construed against the drafter."

Mountain View/Evergreen Imp. & Serv. Dist. v. Casper Concrete Co., 912 P.2d 529, 532 (Wyo. 1996).