What happened: An Ohio appeals court reversed a jury verdict for Erie Insurance after finding a flawed question guaranteed a defense verdict.
Who’s involved: Erie Insurance Company, a commercial property owner, and contractor Van Martin Roofing.
What’s at stake: Approximately $70,000 to replace a commercial roof, against a $2,500 policy deductible.
Why it matters: How repair-versus-replace disputes are framed for a jury can determine the outcome before deliberation begins.
Where it stands: Reversed and sent back for a new trial on the breach of contract claim.
Four shingles, six appliques, and one ridge cap - that was all the wind took off a commercial roof in Piqua, Ohio.
What it would cost to fix them is what blew up a trial.
An Ohio appeals court has reversed a jury verdict for Erie Insurance Company after finding the trial court put a flawed question to the jury - one that guaranteed a defense verdict and stopped jurors from reaching the real coverage fight.
The case turned on a commercial property policy covering a building at 301 Kienle Drive, hit by a July 2023 windstorm. Both sides agreed the wind damaged exactly four shingles, six appliques, and one ridge cap. Erie estimated the repair cost fell below the policy’s $2,500 deductible.
The property owner saw it differently - not what the wind hit, but what fixing it would cost. A roofing contractor attempted the repair and said the roof could not be fixed: lifting any shingle would break the seal on the one beneath. The entire roof needed replacing at approximately $70,000.
Erie never sent anyone to watch the repair attempt or re-inspect afterward.
Before the case went to the jury, the judge revised one of the written questions jurors would answer. Erie’s version asked whether the windstorm caused wind damage. The judge added words: whether the wind caused damage “beyond the repair of four shingles, six appliques and one ridge cap.”
Neither side had argued that. The real dispute was whether fixing those items would cost far more than Erie estimated - because the repair itself would wreck the rest of the roof. As worded, the question left jurors no choice but to answer “No,” sending them to a verdict for Erie without reaching questions about repair cost, the deductible, or a policy exclusion.
The jury asked the judge how an Ohio regulation on damage from repairs applied. The judge declined.
The Second Appellate District, in a unanimous decision on October 30, 2026, found the trial court got it wrong. The flawed question “undermined the proper function of the jury” and “rendered the verdict unreliable,” the court held. It ordered a new trial.
How a coverage question is framed for a jury can matter as much as the evidence - worth remembering where the line between a small repair and a full replacement turns on damage the fix itself causes.
The case has been sent back for a new trial. No court has ruled on the merits of the underlying coverage dispute.
