Thanks for your response.
This terminology is not actually used in any of the law. Essentially, it is talking about your situation, the need for the insurance company to make sure that when they repair, the repairs match the rest of the building.
This is the law in Ohio.In American Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Company of America the court held as follows;2. Reasonably Comparable Appearance
The Court analyzed the Ohio Administrative Code’s “reasonably comparable
appearance” requirements and the insurance policy
’s provision regarding “wear and tear,” and ruled that any conflict between the “wear and tear” provision of the policy and the “reasonably comparable appearance” standard of Ohio Administrative Code Section 3901-1-54I (1)(b) must be resolved in favor of application of the “reasonably comparable appearance” standard, if in fact the item to be replaced has also suffered from “wear and tear”. As a consequence, the two appraisers and umpire will be required to make a judgment call, following a visual inspection building by building, siding by siding, as they evaluate the extent to which replacement is required to result in a reasonable comparable appearance. In that context, the fact that the “item” has also suffered from wear and tear will not negate the necessity for replacement where replacement is necessary for a “reasonably comparable appearance.”http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3901-1-543901-1-54 Unfair property/casualty claims settlement practices.
This rule is issued pursuant to the authority vested in the superintendent under sections 3901.19 to 3901.26 of the Revised Code.
The purpose of this rule is to set forth uniform minimum standards for the investigation and disposition of property and casualty claims arising under insurance contracts
or certificates issued to residents of Ohio. It is not intended to cover claims involving workers’ compensation, or fidelity, suretyship, and boiler and machinery insurance. The provisions of this rule are intended to define procedures and practices which constitute unfair claims practices. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to create or imply a private cause of action for violation of this rule.
In your case, it is a bit difficult. The wood siding will have to be stained, and this will cause it to be darker than the other sides. The darker color is not because the other sides have wear and tear and have faded, but only because the damaged sides are actually being stained again. Thus, arguably, the Ohio rule does not require that the other sides also be painted to match the newly painted sides.
Thus, your argument for the additional work to be done may depend entirely on what your insurance policy says regarding this matter. If the policy states that there must be additional coverage to make material match the existing non-damaged parts of the structure, then you do have coverage.
I think you would be best served by having a local attorney examine your policy and give you a coverage opinion on this matter. The attorneys in Ohio which specialize in this are: http://www.ohio-insurance-lawyer.com/Fire-Property-Loss/Property-Loss-Claims.shtml
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Please also kindly consider rating my answer positively so that I am credited by the website for my work on your question. Rating positively does not cause an additional charge and does not prevent us from further discussing your questions.