Noonan v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 18-1393 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit agreed with American Family that the district court erred in holding that the matching exclusion did not apply to the insureds' policy. Reviewing the district court's interpretation of the insurance policy de novo and applying Minnesota law, the court held that even if it were to discount the matching exclusion's explicit statement that it modifies the Form, as the district court did, other circumstances unambiguously showed that the Minnesota Endorsement, and thus the matching exclusion, applied to the insureds' policy. Therefore, the district court erred in reading the matching exclusion in the policy and, after applying the explicit and unambiguous exclusion, American Family was not obligated to pay for damages attributable to matching difficulties.
Court Description: Arnold, Author, with Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. The "matching exclusion" in the homeowner's policy in question was explicit and unambiguous and the defendant insurer was not obligated to pay for damages attributable to differences between the new roofing shingles and the undamaged ones.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.