Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

932 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2019)

Words & Phrases

Property Damage: In General

Trial Judge

Gary Feinerman

Appellate Judge

Hamilton

Holding

Where siding on two sides of a building was physically damaged by a storm, and matching siding was no longer available, property insurer was obligated to pay for replacement siding for the entire building.

Fact Summary

 [1]-In an insurance coverage case, the district court's conclusion that the insured's condominium buildings as a whole were damaged—and that all of the siding had to be replaced to ensure matching—was a sensible construction of the policy language as applied to the facts. Due to the extent of the damage and the lack of matching siding available on the market, the better construction of the ambiguous replacement policy was that it required the insurer to replace the siding on all four elevations of the building. Each building suffered a direct physical loss, which was caused by or resulted from the hail and wind storm, and the insurer therefore had to pay to return the buildings to their pre-storm status—i.e., with matching siding on all sides.

Back