An Alberta appeal court has upheld a decision forcing Allstate to replace siding on all four walls of a hail-damaged home.
The dispute began with a July 15, 2023 hailstorm that struck a Calgary property insured under a VIP Homeowner Policy. Allstate's appraiser and adjuster concluded only the north and west exterior walls were damaged. The homeowner disagreed, saying all four sides were hit, and obtained his own estimates covering the roof, siding on every wall, and damaged soft metals on the fascia, eavestroughs and downspouts.
The trial judge awarded the homeowner indemnification under the policy - full roof replacement, siding on all four walls, and $2,500 in loss mitigation coverage, less the deductible. Allstate appealed, arguing the policy is a contract of indemnity, not enhancement, and that it needed only to replace the sections that had sustained direct physical damage.
At the heart of the case sat the policy's promise to repair or replace with "property of like kind and quality." Allstate's contractor had matched the original colour by exposing siding the sun had not bleached, but the trial judge found the resulting split between new and old panels would be visible from the street and would not meet that standard. She held that "kind" includes colour.
Justice N.M. Carruthers dismissed the appeal on July 21, 2026. Although he did not fully endorse how the trial judge reached her conclusion, he wrote, "I agree with the outcome." He cited a line of Canadian rulings holding that an insured with direct-damage coverage should not be left with an asset of diminished value because of a colour mismatch across a roof or exterior wall.
The decision also spotlighted an evidentiary gap that worked against the insurer. Allstate did not call its original appraiser or adjuster, who had firsthand knowledge, and its expert never inspected the home, relying only on the insurer's photographs. The judge found the homeowner's account of damage to all sides went unrefuted.
The court rejected Allstate's contention that individual siding panels were "Parts" under the policy's Additional Conditions, finding that provision applied to personal property, not the dwelling. It noted no case law supported treating siding or shingles as parts.
Carruthers added that the insurer could have drafted clearer language limiting its exposure where siding had deteriorated before a loss. He observed it was open to Allstate to spell out that an insured might not be fully restored if the finish had shown substantial wear before the hail struck.
The decision is final and cannot be appealed further.
