Know your Options!
Alliance 1 Construction what sets us apart
At Alliance 1 Construction, we specialize in using established case law as a reference point not to practice law, but to support factual, evidence-based roofing claims. By combining this knowledge with detailed line-of-sight inspections, we help ensure our clients receive the full roof replacements they deserve. We do not handle legal matters; instead, we apply facts and industry standards to drive results and protect our clients' best interests.
Missouri Matching Line of sight law
Our Experience with case law & line or sight
At Alliance 1 Construction, we know Missouri doesn’t have laws requiring insurance companies to match roofing materials visible from the ground, but case law says otherwise. We don’t practice law, but we use legal precedents and proven facts to back your claim and fight for full roof replacements. Through detailed line-of-sight inspections and a deep understanding of industry standards, we make sure our clients get the results they deserve — not patch jobs, but brand-new roofs.
Alessi v. Mid-Century Insurance Company (Missouri Case)
- Background:
A homeowner, Mr. Alessi, had hail damage to his house. His insurance company (Mid-Century) agreed there was damage but only wanted to pay to replace a few damaged shingles — not the whole roof.
- Issue:
The repaired shingles would not match the rest of the roof, and the mismatched repairs would be obvious from a line of sight (standing in the yard looking at the house).
- Homeowner's Argument:
The insurance policy promised to return the home to its "pre-loss condition," and a patchy, mismatched roof wasn’t the condition it was in before.
- Court Decision:
The court agreed with Alessi.
They ruled that "pre-loss condition" means a reasonably uniform appearance — especially where mismatches are clearly visible.
So, Mid-Century was required to replace the entire roof, not just repair a few shingles.
- Key Takeaway:
Even though Missouri doesn't have a specific law forcing insurers to match materials, courts use case law like Alessi to say that if repairs create an obvious mismatch visible from a normal viewpoint, full replacement may be required under standard insurance policies.
In Plain Language for Homeowners:
"If your roof repairs would leave your home looking patchy or mismatched when you look at it from the street, case law like Alessi says the insurance company may have to replace the whole roof — not just the damaged parts."
we don't do Just local! We will come to you!
List of Matching STates and Case law states
Matching States
Matching States
Matching States
States that may require matching material
These states have either insurance regulations or case law that supports matching requirements:
Florida
Statutes require matching for adjoining areas.
Minnesota
Regulation requires matching for uniform appearance.
Iowa
Courts have supported full replacements for aesthetic mismatch.
Ohio
Case law supports matching if policy includes "like kind and quality."
Texas
Matching is often required under the “like kind and quality” standard.
Kentucky
Matching may be required through policy interpretation.
California
Regulations and DOI bulletins support matching.
Illinois
Courts have interpreted policy terms to support matching.
Nebraska
Matching is often honored due to policy language.
North Dakota
Insurers must provide reasonable uniform appearance.
Case Law States
Matching States
Matching States
States with noticeable case law supporting matching in insurance claims
Missouri
- Alessi v. Mid-Century Insurance Company
- Held that “pre-loss condition” requires a uniform appearance — insurer had to replace the full roof due to mismatching shingles visible from line-of-sight.
Iowa
- Courts have favored full replacement when partial repairs result in a noticeable mismatch, even without specific statutory guidance.
Ohio
Windridge of Naperville Condo Ass’n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.
Interpreted “like kind and quality” to require replacement of matching siding across a building.
Illinois
Courts have ruled that ambiguity in insurance policies should be resolved in favor of the policyholder — including aesthetic considerations when partial replacements would not match.
Kentucky
Case law suggests that “pre-loss condition” may include consistent appearance — decisions have required matching when repairs would stand out.
Nebraska
Courts have sided with insureds when visual mismatches result in an unacceptable restoration of the structure.
New York
Case law supports policyholder rights where inconsistent appearance or mismatches result from covered perils.
Pennsylvania
Courts have enforced replacement coverage when visual or functional uniformity is disrupted by partial repair.
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.