I appreciate your attention to my question. I am a resident of Minnesota, and my property has suffered damage due to overspray paint from a construction project. The affected areas include the roof, siding, and deck and all affected items are less than five years old. Unfortunately, the nature of the paint used renders it incapable of being removed through conventional cleaning methods.
I am currently in communication with the painter’s insurance company, and they have acknowledged that the liability for the damages rests squarely with their insured party. At least five other properties experienced similar damage from the same incident with the same type of paint. Some of these property owners have successfully settled with the insurance company, receiving cash settlements equivalent to the full amount they had initially requested.
In my discussions with the insurance company, there have been references to factoring in depreciation. My concern pertains to the adherence of the insurance company to Minnesota laws governing fair insurance settlements. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 2A.201, Subdivision 5 stipulates that unfair settlement practices encompass “reducing or attempting to reduce any settlement for depreciation of an item not adversely affected by age, use, or obsolescence.” The items I am claiming are not adversely affected by age, use, or obsolescence. Furthermore, Minnesota Statute 72A.20, Subdivision 12(6); 12(13) prohibits insurers from “not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.”
Given that other claimants have received settlements in line with their requested amounts, including full replacement compensation, I seek clarification on whether the insurance company is legally entitled to depreciate the value of my property. Thank you!
