Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
March 27, 2019
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. l:16-CV-3860 -
Gary Feinerman, Judge.
Easterbrook, Kanne, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.
HAMILTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE
appeal presents an insurance coverage dispute between
Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association and
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company. On May 20, 2014, a
hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The
buildings were insured by Philadelphia Indemnity. The storm
physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings'
south and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity contends that it
is required under the insurance policy to replace the siding
only on those sides. Windridge argues that replacement siding
that matches the undamaged north and east elevations is no
longer available, so Philadelphia Indemnity must replace the
siding on all four sides of the buildings so that all of the
siding matches. The district court granted summary judgment
to Windridge on that coverage issue. We affirm.
Factual & Procedural Background
review the factual record in the light reasonably most
favorable to Philadelphia Indemnity as the non-moving party.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
255 (1986); Yahnke v. Kane County, 823 F.3d 1066,
1070 (7th Cir. 2016). For starters, the parties agree that
the insurance policy was in effect on May 20, 2014, when the
hail and wind storm damaged Windridge's buildings. They
also agree that the storm directly damaged the siding only on
the buildings' south and west sides. Philadelphia
Indemnity has already paid $2.1 million to Windridge for that
damage. Windridge seeks additional money to replace the
siding on the north and east sides because matching siding is
no longer available for purchase. Windridge argues it is
entitled under the policy to have the buildings repaired so
that, as before the storm, the siding matches on all sides.
Philadelphia Indemnity has refused to pay for these
additional costs and argues that the policy requires payment
only to replace siding that was directly hit and damaged by
the hail and wind.
The Insurance Policy
start with the text of the insurance policy. Under the
coverage provision, Philadelphia Indemnity must "pay for
direct physical 'loss' to Covered Property caused by
or resulting from any of the Covered Causes of Loss."
"Covered Property ... means/' among other things,
the "'Buildings' described in the
Declarations." "'Buildings' means buildings
or structures." "'Loss' means accidental
loss or damage." The policy's loss valuation
We will determine the value of Covered Property in the event
of "loss" as follows:
a. At replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation)
as of the time of "loss" ...
(1) We will not pay more for "loss" on a
replacement costs basis than the least of:
(a) The Limit of Insurance applicable to the lost or damaged
(b) The cost to replace the lost or damaged property with
(i) Of comparable material and quality; and
(ii) Used for the same purpose; or
(c) The amount you actually spend that is necessary to repair
or replace the lost ...