Matching siding laws by state
When a hail or wind storm damages part of a wall but the color or profile of the existing siding can’t be matched, can your insurer force you to accept a mismatched repair — or do they have to replace all the siding? It depends on your state. Below is every US state’s current rule, with the statute or regulation citation, plus a link to our state siding guide for the full regulatory context.
How the matching question comes up
After a hail or wind storm, an insurance adjuster often writes an estimate covering only the elevations that took visible damage. For vinyl and other lap siding, that creates a matching problem: the siding line installed on your home in 2016 may be discontinued, out of production, or simply a shade off from current stock. The question every homeowner faces is whether the insurer is obligated to replace all the siding so the finished product has a uniform appearance, or whether a partial replacement with the closest-available match satisfies the policy.
The answer is almost never in your actual policy language. It lives in state insurance regulations or unfair-claim- settlement statutes, and the rules vary enormously. Some states (Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri) have explicit regulations requiring a “reasonably uniform appearance” that effectively forces full-siding replacement in most hail and wind claims. Others have no rule at all, leaving it to policy interpretation and (if it comes to it) a lawsuit. The table below is what we’ve researched so far.
This is a research-based summary, not legal advice. Statutes and regulations change; carriers interpret them differently; courts rule on specific facts. Before acting on a claim decision, verify the current statute text at the source and consult a licensed attorney or public adjuster who practices in your state.
Matching law by state
| State | Summary | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Admin. Code r. 482-1-125-.07, adopted under §27-12-24, gives insurers 30 days after proof of loss to accept, deny, or request more time on a first-party claim, then 30 more to pay once liability and amount are agreed. After the 2011 Super Outbreak and the 2024–2025 tornado season backlog, documented FORTIFIED inspections and dated photos of cracked, holed, or blown-off siding move Alabama claims faster than any phone call. | Ala. Admin. Code r. 482-1-125-.07 |
| Alaska | AS 21.36.125 and 3 AAC 26.010 bar insurers from misrepresenting policy terms, failing to acknowledge claims within 10 working days, or failing to affirm or deny coverage within 15 working days of proof of loss. After the 2018 Point Mackenzie M7.1 quake and the 2021 Fairbanks ice storm, dated photos of cracked panels, separated trim, and split lap joints move Alaska siding claims faster than any phone call — and a discontinued panel profile makes "matching siding" the whole fight. | AS 21.36.125 / 3 AAC 26.010 |
| Arizona | Arizona has no explicit matching statute. The duty flows from A.R.S. §20-461 and A.A.C. R20-6-801(D), which require good-faith settlement and bar cash payouts below actual repair cost. On Phoenix homes, discontinued siding profiles and color lines — and stucco texture and color that cannot be feathered into an existing wall — make 'like kind and quality' the whole fight when a carrier pays only the damaged elevation. | A.R.S. §20-461 / A.A.C. R20-6-801 |
| Arkansas | Arkansas's unfair-claim-settlement statute at Ark. Code §23-66-206 and AID Rule 43 set the handling floor: carriers must acknowledge a claim within 15 working days, complete investigation within 45 days, and cannot condition payment on use of a specific contractor. After the 2023 Little Rock–Wynne EF-3 pair and 2025 Diaz–Larkin EF-4 outbreak, discontinued siding color and profile lines make 'like kind and quality' the central matching dispute on partial-wall claims. | Ark. Code §23-66-206; AID Rule 43 |
| California | California Insurance Code §2695.9(a)(2) requires carriers, when replacing a damaged item, to provide property of "like kind and quality." Where a reasonably uniform appearance cannot be achieved, the insurer must replace undamaged items along with damaged items. Enforcement has been strong after the 2020–2025 wildfire seasons for homes with ignition-resistant siding and discontinued panel profiles that cannot be matched on a partial-wall repair. | Cal. Ins. Code §2695.9(a)(2) |
| Colorado | Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 5-1-14 (Concerning Replacement of Like Kind and Quality) requires carriers to replace damaged siding with materials of "reasonably uniform appearance." The regulation was reinforced by Colorado's stronger storm-claim consumer protections in C.R.S. §10-3-1104. After the 2023 and 2024 Denver-metro hail seasons, insurers have faced successful complaints for mismatch where only the damaged elevation was replaced. | Colorado DOI Reg. 5-1-14 |
| Connecticut | Connecticut has a dedicated matching statute. CGS §38a-316e requires insurers, on a covered real-property loss, to replace adjacent items to a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight. The Connecticut Supreme Court in Klass v. Liberty Mutual (2022) held that matching-scope disputes go to appraisal as part of 'amount of loss,' not coverage — a real shift in how stonewalled partial-siding claims resolve. Carrier refusals can add CUIPA (CGS §38a-816) and CUTPA exposure. | CGS §38a-316e |
| Delaware | Delaware's matching standard sits in 18 Del. Admin. Code 902, patterned on the NAIC model. When a partial siding loss can't be repaired with materials reasonably matching the undamaged sections in quality, color, and size, the carrier must replace the affected area to produce a reasonably uniform appearance. Paired with 18 Del. C. §2304(16)'s duty of prompt, fair settlement, the rule gives Sussex coastal claimants leverage when storm damage hits one elevation of a weathered shore home. | 18 DE Admin. Code 902 |
| Florida | Under F.S. §626.9744, insurers must repair or replace property with materials of "like kind and quality." SB 2A (2022) did not abolish the rule, but it shifted the burden — insurers now often argue that non-identical replacement meets the standard when the current siding profile or color is no longer manufactured. Siding discontinuation is a real and frequent issue, so document the existing panel profile, color, and manufacturer before any partial repair. | F.S. §626.9744 |
| Georgia | Georgia has no statutory matching mandate. Courts read the policy's "like kind and quality" clause, and carriers routinely argue partial-wall replacement satisfies it — a posture that left homeowners with discontinued siding profiles and post-Helene claimants fighting for full-wall coverage. HB 1310 (2022) would have required full-area replacement when new materials don't match in quality, color, or size, but the bill stalled in the House Insurance Committee and was never enacted. | O.C.G.A. §33-6-34 (no matching rule); HB 1310 (2022, not enacted) |
| Hawaii | Hawaii has no dedicated matching statute, but HRS §431:13-103 (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act) and HAR Chapter 16-172 bar insurers from forcing homeowners to accept obviously mismatched repairs. Under §431:13-103(a)(11), failing to attempt a prompt, fair, equitable settlement once liability is reasonably clear is an unfair practice. Post-Lahaina, the Insurance Division has pressed carriers on mismatched siding repairs where trade-wind and vog-aged panels cannot match new stock. | HRS §431:13-103 / HAR §16-172 |
| Idaho | Idaho Code §41-1329 and IDAPA 18.01.27 require carriers to acknowledge claims promptly, investigate in good faith, and pay undisputed amounts without unreasonable delay. After the 2024 Wapiti and Red Rock fires and recurring Treasure Valley microburst-wind claims, Boise adjusters sometimes steer homeowners to a preferred vendor. Idaho law does not force that choice — you may hire any DOPL-registered siding contractor. When discontinued siding profiles or colors prevent a clean partial match, document calls, demand written denials, and report §41-1329 violations to doi.idaho.gov. | Idaho Code §41-1329; IDAPA 18.01.27 |
| Illinois | Illinois has no explicit matching statute. 215 ILCS 5/154.6 defines improper claims practices generally, and 50 Ill. Admin. Code 919 regulates fair claim settlement without naming siding matching. Matching rights come from case law — the Seventh Circuit in Windridge of Naperville v. Philadelphia Indemnity (2019) read ambiguous policy language in favor of matching, but noted matching may not apply to trivial damage like a single panel. Discontinued vinyl profiles make a clean match a recurring fight. | 215 ILCS 5/154.6 + Windridge (7th Cir. 2019) |
| Indiana | Indiana has no matching statute, but Erie Insurance Exchange v. Sams (20 N.E.3d 182, Ind. Ct. App. 2014) holds that an RCV homeowner policy must fund siding and exterior matching where expert testimony shows the mismatch reduces property value. Paired with IC 27-4-1-4.5's good-faith prompt-and-equitable settlement duty, Indianapolis adjusters generally fund full-wall replacement when weathering or a discontinued vinyl profile prevents a reasonable color blend. | Erie Ins. Exch. v. Sams, 20 N.E.3d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) |
| Iowa | Iowa enforces a line-of-sight matching rule under 191 IAC 15.44, promulgated under §507B.4. When replacement items don't match the undamaged portion in quality, color, or size, the insurer must replace as much as needed to produce a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight — a meaningful standard for derecho-era Cedar Rapids partial-wall siding claims. | 191 IAC 15.44 (Iowa Insurance Division) |
| Kansas | Kansas carriers operate under K.A.R. 40-1-34: acknowledge a property claim within 10 days, accept or deny within 15 days of proof-of-loss, and complete investigation within 30 days or issue status updates every 45 days. Because vinyl siding lines are discontinued and reformulated constantly, partial repairs often cannot match — missed deadlines and mismatch underpayments become K.S.A. 40-2404 Unfair Trade Practices violations after Wichita-area hail events. File with KID. | K.A.R. 40-1-34; K.S.A. 40-2404 |
| Kentucky | Kentucky's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (KRS 304.12-230), implemented by 806 KAR 12:095, requires carriers to acknowledge claims within 15 days, offer payment within 30 days of proof of loss, and send a written status letter every 45 days during investigation. Because vinyl siding lines are discontinued and reformulated constantly, partial repairs often cannot match — acknowledgment and investigation-delay violations drove the bulk of KDOI consumer complaints after the December 2021 Mayfield EF-4 and the 2022 and 2025 Eastern Kentucky floods. | KRS 304.12-230; 806 KAR 12:095 |
| Louisiana | Louisiana has no statute or regulation requiring insurers to match undamaged siding panels. Recovery typically turns on La. R.S. 22:1892's 30-day/50% bad-faith penalty when a carrier's partial-replacement offer leaves the wall visibly mismatched — vinyl siding colors and profiles are discontinued constantly — rather than on a matching rule itself. | La. R.S. 22:1892 |
| Maine | Maine has no statutory matching rule, but 24-A M.R.S. §2164-D and Bureau of Insurance Rule Ch. 290 bar unfair claim settlement practices — including failure to adopt reasonable investigation standards and refusing payment without one. After the January 2024 coastal storms and December 2023 Downeast wind event, disputes over partial-wall replacement and discontinued-color siding matching are routed to the Bureau at maine.gov/pfr/insurance as unfair-practice complaints. | 24-A M.R.S. §2164-D |
| Maryland | Maryland has no standalone matching statute. Disputes run through Md. Code Ins. §27-303 and COMAR 31.15.07.03, which bar unfair claim settlement practices and require good-faith first-party handling. Because vinyl siding colors and profiles are discontinued and reformulated constantly, partial patching rarely restores a uniform wall, so reasonable adjustment usually means replacing the affected elevation. Escalate underpayments to the MIA at 1-800-492-6116. | Md. Code Ins. §27-303; COMAR 31.15.07.03 |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts has no siding-matching statute, but MGL Ch 176D §3(9) lists fourteen unfair claim settlement practices — failing to promptly settle once liability is reasonably clear, refusing to pay without reasonable investigation — and 211 CMR 123 governs fair claim handling. A Ch 176D violation is actionable through Ch 93A §9: willful bad faith exposes a carrier to two-to-three times damages plus attorney fees, the practical lever on mismatched-elevation disputes when a discontinued vinyl color cannot be matched after a Nor'easter or 2018's bomb cyclone. | MGL Ch 176D §3(9) / Ch 93A §9 |
| Michigan | Michigan has no statute or regulation requiring matching of undamaged siding sections. Recovery turns on 'like kind and quality' policy language and MCL §500.2026's unfair claim settlement practices standard, enforced by DIFS. After the Aug. 2023 SE Michigan tornado outbreak and rising wind claims, partial-wall settlements on discontinued siding profiles have become the dominant matching fight — document aesthetic mismatch and escalate to DIFS when denied. | MCL §500.2026 |
| Minnesota | Minnesota has one of the strongest matching statutes in the country. Minn. Stat. §72A.201, Subd. 8A requires homeowners insurers settling a loss to provide a 'reasonably uniform appearance' on the repaired or replaced property, including the siding, when matching materials are no longer available. After the 2017 Twin Cities hail cluster and the 2024 giant-hail events, carriers routinely owe full-wall or full-elevation replacement when a partial repair would leave visibly mismatched siding — the statute is often cited as the model for other states' consumer protections. | Minn. Stat. §72A.201, Subd. 8A |
| Mississippi | Under Miss. Code §83-5-45, the Insurance Commissioner investigates unfair settlement practices, though the statute gives no private right of action. First-party bad-faith claims follow the Veasley standard — extracontractual damages when a carrier lacks an arguable basis to deny. After the March 2023 Rolling Fork EF-4 and persistent post-Katrina coastal disputes, MID Consumer Protection is the practical first stop for underpaid siding claims. | Miss. Code §83-5-45 |
| Missouri | Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance regulation 20 CSR 100-1.050 (Improper Claims Practices) requires insurers to replace siding with materials of "like kind and quality" that match the undamaged portion in appearance. Reinforced by 20 CSR 500-6.100 for impact-resistant exterior-cladding discounts — a state-recognized rate consideration for homes with hail-rated siding. | 20 CSR 100-1.050 |
| Montana | Montana Code Annotated §33-18-201 prohibits unfair claim settlement practices — misrepresenting policy terms, failing to investigate promptly, or forcing litigation by lowballing settlements. §33-18-232 requires carriers to pay or deny within 30 days of proof of loss (60 if more info is requested) or owe 10% annual interest, and §33-18-242 gives insureds an independent cause of action for statutory violations. Mismatched siding-panel replacement after hail is a recurring issue; the CSI at csimt.gov intakes carrier-conduct complaints. | M.C.A. §33-18-201 |
| Nebraska | Nebraska is a strong matching state. 210 Neb. Admin. Code Ch. 60 § 010 requires that when replacement items do not reasonably match in quality, color, or size, the insurer must replace all items in the area to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. The rule implements § 44-1540 — partial-wall siding-panel payouts on Omaha and Lincoln hail claims are reportable to DOI. | 210 NAC Ch. 60 § 010 |
| Nevada | NRS 686A.310 bars Nevada insurers from misrepresenting policy terms, failing to acknowledge monsoon or hail claims promptly, denying coverage without explanation, or refusing fair settlement once liability is reasonably clear. Subsection 2 grants Las Vegas valley homeowners a direct private right of action — so when a carrier lowballs a microburst loss or blames heat-aged fading to dodge wind coverage, or refuses to match a partial siding repair to undamaged walls when a panel line is discontinued, the insured may sue the insurer itself, not just pursue common-law bad faith. | NRS 686A.310 |
| New Hampshire | New Hampshire's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices statute at RSA 417:4, XV requires carriers to acknowledge claim communications within ten working days, investigate promptly, and affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss. Civil penalties run up to $2,500 per violation; higher for willful conduct. Mismatched siding-panel replacement in Coos, Grafton, and Carroll and post-nor'easter wind damage (April 2024) are where 417:4 matching patterns surface. Route complaints through insurance.nh.gov. | RSA 417:4, XV |
| New Jersey | New Jersey has no dedicated matching statute, but N.J.A.C. 11:2-17 requires fair and equitable property-claim settlements, and N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4 bars failing to effectuate prompt, fair payment once liability is reasonably clear. Post-Sandy and post-2023 nor'easter shore claims often see carriers resist matching a partial siding repair to the undamaged walls — file a DOBI complaint if the offer leaves you with visibly mismatched siding. | N.J.A.C. 11:2-17; N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4 |
| New Mexico | New Mexico's Unfair Claims Practices Act, NMSA 1978 §59A-16-20, requires insurers to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement once liability is reasonably clear and bars failing to adopt reasonable standards for investigating claims. It supports a first-party private right of action. On a hail or monsoon loss where repair cannot produce uniform appearance across walls — common when a siding line has been discontinued — partial line-of-sight replacement reads as inequitable. Pair §59A-16-20 with NMUPA §57-12-10 and an OSI complaint. | NMSA 1978 §59A-16-20 |
| New York | New York has no dedicated matching statute. Siding mismatch disputes turn on Insurance Law §2601 and 11 NYCRR §216 (Regulation 64), which require prompt, fair, and equitable settlement. On Long Island wind claims and upstate hail damage, where discontinued vinyl colors and profiles make an exact match impossible, DFS expects carriers to settle reasonably; denials for partial-wall patching without line-of-sight analysis are reportable to DFS. | 11 NYCRR §216 (Reg. 64); NY Ins. L. §2601 |
| North Carolina | North Carolina is one of the stronger matching states. N.C.G.S. §58-3-177 requires that when replacement materials on a property damage claim aren't reasonably available to match existing ones, the insurer must replace materials on adjoining areas to produce a reasonably uniform appearance — not just the damaged wall. The NC Department of Insurance has enforced this through like-kind-and-quality complaints, and matching disputes were a recurring issue after Hurricane Isaias (2020) on the coast and Helene (2024) in the western mountains. | N.C.G.S. §58-3-177 |
| North Dakota | North Dakota has no statute or regulation that expressly requires matching of undamaged siding materials. N.D. Cent. Code §26.1-04-03 bars unfair claim settlement practices, and N.D. Admin. Code ch. 45-14-01 requires carriers to adjust claims in good faith — which Fargo and Bismarck policyholders argue reaches visibly mismatched siding-panel replacement after hail, but the outcome still turns on the policy wording. | N.D. Cent. Code §26.1-04-03 |
| Ohio | Ohio is a middle-ground matching state. OAC 3901-1-54, the Unfair Property/Casualty Claims Settlement Practices rule, obligates insurers to handle claims in good faith, and Ohio adjusters generally apply a reasonable-uniformity standard when discontinued or weathered siding panels prevent a clean partial match. Enforcement is policy-language-driven and inconsistent across carriers, so homeowners should cite OAC 3901-1-54 in writing and escalate to ODI if a visible mismatch is forced. | OAC 3901-1-54 |
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma has one of the strongest matching standards in the country. 36 O.S. §1250.5(5) (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act) combined with the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in Redcorn v. State Farm (2002) requires that where damaged exterior covering cannot be matched with comparable materials, the insurer must replace enough of the cladding to restore a uniform appearance. Siding is squarely affected — discontinued vinyl colors and profiles make matching a single damaged wall to the rest of the house genuinely difficult, and the Insurance Commissioner has enforced this consistently in post-hail disputes. | 36 O.S. §1250.5 |
| Oregon | Oregon has no statute mandating siding matching. ORS 746.230 and OAR 836-080-0225 require good-faith claim settlement but leave uniform appearance to policy language. The PNW twist: mildew, algae, and moisture age west-side siding faster than wind or hail did, so carriers often attribute panel discoloration, warping, and fade to pre-existing wear rather than a covered peril — narrowing the repair to the damaged wall. Push back with dated photos and a DFR complaint, especially where a discontinued color or profile makes a single-wall repair impossible to match. | ORS 746.230 / OAR 836-080-0225 |
| Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania regulates matching through the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (40 P.S. §1171.5) and 31 Pa. Code §146.7, which require prompt, fair, and equitable settlement when liability is reasonably clear. PA carriers generally must restore pre-loss appearance on the damaged wall, but there is no statutory whole-house replacement mandate — line-of-sight matching disputes are resolved case-by-case, often turning on policy language, discontinued siding colors and profiles, and PA Department of Insurance bulletins. | 31 Pa. Code §146.7 |
| Rhode Island | Rhode Island has no siding-matching statute. R.I. Gen. Laws §27-9.1-4 (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act) bars carriers from failing to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement once liability is reasonably clear, and DBR Insurance Regulation 73 (230-RICR-20-40-2) layers claim-handling duties on top. Coastal wind and nor'easter claims often stop at a partial elevation; push in writing for a full-elevation match or a documented uniform-appearance replacement, and escalate to the DBR Division of Insurance if the carrier will not respond. Discontinued vinyl siding profiles and colors make a clean partial match especially hard. | R.I. Gen. Laws §27-9.1-4; DBR Reg. 73 |
| South Carolina | South Carolina has no dedicated matching statute — SC falls back on the general good-faith duty in SC Code §38-59-20, which makes it an improper claim practice for a carrier to fail to effect a prompt, fair, equitable settlement once liability is clear. On an RCV policy, a Charleston or Myrtle Beach homeowner with visible mismatch between a replaced wall and adjacent undamaged walls — common when a vinyl profile or color is discontinued — has a §38-59-20 leverage point. Escalate to a DOI complaint before accepting a mismatched scope. | SC Code §38-59-20 |
| South Dakota | South Dakota has no dedicated matching statute and no ARSD rule directly requiring uniform appearance after a partial siding loss. HB 1054 (2014) proposed an NAIC-style matching regulation but was never enacted. Homeowners rely on the SDCL Chapter 58-33 unfair trade practices framework and their policy's 'like kind and quality' replacement language when a carrier refuses to match a hail-damaged wall in Sioux Falls or Rapid City. | SDCL Chapter 58-33 |
| Tennessee | Tennessee has no dedicated matching statute. Disputes run through the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (T.C.A. §56-8-105) and TDCI rule 0780-01-05, which require fair, good-faith adjustment. Enforcement is uneven — post-Helene and post-Clarksville tornado claims show carriers often replace only the damaged elevation, pushing homeowners to appraisal or TDCI complaint when discontinued siding cannot be matched. | T.C.A. §56-8-105 |
| Texas | Texas has no explicit matching statute. The duty flows indirectly from Tex. Ins. Code §541.060 and 28 TAC §21.203, which require good-faith settlement and like-kind-and-quality replacement on RCV claims, backed by older TDI bulletins rejecting patched repairs. North Texas carriers routinely read this narrowly — paying only the damaged wall — and Chapter 542A pre-suit notice rules make siding-matching disputes harder to litigate here than in Oklahoma or Colorado. Discontinued vinyl profiles and faded panels make a clean match especially difficult. | 28 TAC §21.203 / Tex. Ins. Code §541.060 |
| Utah | Utah has no statute mandating siding matching, but Utah Code §31A-26-303 bars unfair claim settlement practices and Admin. Rule R590-190 requires prompt, good-faith adjustment with reasonable investigation. After the September 2020 Wasatch Front windstorm, Utah Insurance Department guidance treats partial repairs that leave a wall visibly mismatched — common when a vinyl color or profile is discontinued — as a reasonable-uniform-appearance issue; insurers must justify non-matching repairs, not impose them by default. Dispute through insurance.utah.gov/complaints. | Utah Code §31A-26-303 + R590-190 |
| Vermont | Vermont's Fair Claims Practices Regulation I-79-2, authorized by 8 V.S.A. § 4724(9), sets minimum claim-handling standards: insurers must acknowledge a claim within 10 business days, accept or deny within 15 business days of a complete proof of loss, and pay agreed amounts within 10 business days. Denials must cite the specific policy provision in writing. After the 2023 and 2024 flood disasters, DFR has emphasized prompt, documented handling. | Reg. I-79-2 / 8 V.S.A. § 4724 |
| Virginia | Virginia has no siding-specific matching statute, but Va. Code §38.2-510 (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act) bars insurers from offering substantially less than amounts ultimately recovered, and SCC Bureau of Insurance guidance treats uniform appearance of exterior materials like siding as part of a reasonable indemnity when undamaged sections cannot be reasonably matched after a covered loss. Discontinued vinyl siding profiles and colors make a clean partial match especially difficult. | Va. Code §38.2-510 |
| Washington | Washington's fair-claims rule (WAC 284-30-380) requires carriers to restore damaged property to its pre-loss condition with materials of like kind and quality. Siding matching disputes are common when a discontinued vinyl color or profile makes an exact match impossible — PNW claims skew toward wind-damaged panels, faded color lines, and moisture failures. The regulation is on the books but there is little Washington appellate case law interpreting it; an OIC complaint at insurance.wa.gov is usually the fastest remedy when a carrier refuses reasonable matching. | WAC 284-30-380 |
| West Virginia | West Virginia has no siding-matching statute. First-party claim conduct is governed by §33-11-4 (Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) and CSR §114-14 fair-claim rules. Under Hayseeds v. State Farm and Jenkins v. J.C. Penney Casualty, a WV insured who substantially prevails against their carrier may recover consequential damages plus attorney fees — and punitive damages where bad faith is shown. A patchwork repair that leaves a wall visibly mismatched — common when a vinyl color or profile is discontinued — is measured against §33-11-4, not a matching mandate. | W.Va. Code §33-11-4; CSR §114-14; Hayseeds |
| Wisconsin | Wisconsin has no dedicated matching statute. Wis. Admin. Code Ins 6.76(3)(m) lets carriers repair or replace with 'like kind and quality,' and Ins 6.11 governs unfair claim settlement — a mismatched partial elevation after a Milwaukee-metro or Chippewa Valley hail event can support a §628.46 prompt-pay claim plus an Ins 6.11 complaint to OCI. Discontinued vinyl siding profiles and colors make clean partial matches especially hard. | Wis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11 |
| Wyoming | Wyoming's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act at W.S. §26-13-124 prohibits carriers from misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to acknowledge claim communications promptly, or failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss. Paired with W.S. §26-15-124, carriers acting without reasonable cause owe the insured 10% interest plus attorney fees. Siding matching disputes — common where a vinyl color or profile has been discontinued — are measured against these standards; the Wyoming Department of Insurance enforces them through its Consumer Affairs Section at doi.wyo.gov. | W.S. §26-13-124 |
Rows marked “Research pending” link to our state siding guide, which covers the state’s contractor licensing and storm-claim framework. We expand matching-law research one state at a time; if you’re facing a specific claim, go to the state’s Department of Insurance consumer-services page first.
Comparing bids after a hail or wind claim?
Two minutes of questions. A local siding contractor reaches out through our lead partner who have handled insurance claims in your metro. See how we screen contractors for what we verify.
Start with my zip code