Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0662

Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association,
Appellant,

vs.

American Family Insurance Company,
Respondent.

Filed November 25, 2019
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CV-17-6025

Timothy D. Johnson, Alexander M. Jadin, Amanda K. Linden, Smith Jadin Johnson,
PLLC, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)

Dan Millea, Dennis C. Anderson, Zelle LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
In this insurance -coverage dispute, appellant Pleasure Creek Townhomes
Homeowner’s Association (the Association) appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to respondent American Family Insurance Company. The Association , the
insured, argues that the district court erred by decid ing that its all -risk businessowners

2
policy does not cover the cost to replace undamaged, faded siding to match siding replaced
due to hail damage. The Association argues that (1) the policy’s matching exclusion is void
as a matter of law because it violat es the minimum coverage required by the Minnesota
Standard Fire Insurance Policy, Minn. Stat. § 65A.01 (2018); (2) the matching exclusion
does not apply to the facts of this case ; (3) in the alternative, the matching exclusion is
ambiguous and unenforceabl e; and (4) American Family ’s construction of its policy
violates the reasonable expectations of the policyholder. We affirm.
FACTS
The Association purchased an insurance policy (the Policy) from American Family
in October 2016. The Policy was an all -risk “Businessowners Policy” and covered the
Association’s 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14
of the covered buildings. The Association filed a claim for the loss under the Policy.
The parties disagreed about aspects of the price and scope of the repairs, which led
to an appraisal. The appraisal pane l issued findings in June 2018. Its relevant finding for
this appeal was that the material available to replace the damaged siding did not
“reasonably match” the existing, undamaged siding on the townhome buildings , as the
existing vinyl siding had faded in a way that made it difficult to match. The panel included
the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award. American Family
refused to pay this component —which was appraised at about $211, 382—of the award,
but complied in all other respects. 1 American Family withheld this payment based on its

1 In remitting payment, American Family also noted a mathematical error by the appraisal
panel and moved the district court, in the same motion in which it requested the summary

3
view that the Policy explicitly excludes coverage for the replacemen t of undamaged,
mismatched siding under what the parties refer to as the Policy’s “matching exclusion.”
The Policy covers “physical loss of or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by
or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” The “Covered Causes of Loss” include all
“[r]isks of direct physical loss,” except those that the Policy excludes. The matching
exclusion is included as an endorsement that modifies th e Policy. The relevant portion
appears as follows:
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE
READ IT CAREFULLY.
UNMATCHED PROPERTY DAMAGE EXCLUSION
ENDORSEMENT AND APPRAISAL CHANGES

This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the
following:

BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM

A. The Following is Added to E. Property Loss Conditions:
9. Undamaged material
We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged
material due to mismatch between undamaged
material and new material used to repair or replace
damaged material.
We do not cover the loss in value to any property
due to mismatch between undamaged material and
new material used to repair or replace damaged
material.

After declining to pay for the undamaged, mismatched siding, American Family
moved the district court for summary judgment on the Association’s request for a

judgment on appeal here , to correct it. The district court made the correction , and the
Association does not appeal that decision.

4
declaration of coverage for that part of the appraisal award. 2 The district court granted
summary judgment for American Family, concluding that the Policy excludes this
coverage.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
The issues on appeal require statutory interpretation, co ntract interpretation, and
application of the insurance policy to the undisputed facts of the case. We review questions
of statutory interpretation de novo. See Pepper v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 813
N.W.2d 921, 925 (Minn. 2012) . Likewise, “[i]nterpretation of an insurance policy, and
whether a policy provides coverage in a particular situation, are questions of law that we
review de novo.” Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky , 919 N.W.2d 684 , 687 (Minn. 2018)
(quoting Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. , 825 N.W.2d 695, 704
(Minn. 2013)). We apply this standard of review and analyze each of the issues in turn.
I. The Minnesota Standard Fire Insurance Policy, Minn. Stat. § 65A.01, does not
apply to this dispute.

The Association argues that coverage is required by Minn. Stat. § 65A.01—the
statute establishing and applying the Minnesota Standard Fire Insurance Policy . The
Association contends that the Standard Fire Insurance Policy bars the matching exclusion
here. We begin our analysis with whether the Standard Fire Insurance Policy applies.

2 The Association had filed its original complaint in December 2017. The first count
requested that the district court appoint a neutral umpire for the appraisal pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 65A.01, subd. 3, and the second count included a request for a declaration of
coverage “should American Family deny coverage in this matter notwithstanding it s
agreement to participate in the appraisal process.”

5
The Standard Fire Insurance Policy contains minimum coverage provisions for loss
caused by fire. Minn. Stat. § 65A.01. The statute was enacted “to protect insureds from
unexpected limitations on coverage provided by fire insurance policies.” Krueger v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 510 N.W.2d 204, 208 (Minn. App. 1993). The statute must be
broadly construed in light of its remedial purpose. Watson v. United Serv s. Auto. Ass’n,
566 N.W.2d 683, 690 (Minn. 199 7). In operation, the statute reforms an insurance policy
when n ecessary to provide the minimum mandated coverage. Id. The Standard Fire
Insurance Policy states in its “[d]esignation and scope” provision:
No policy or contract of fire insurance shall be made, issued or
delivered by any insurer . . . unless it shall provide the specified
coverage . . . . Any policy or contract . . . which includes either
on an unspecified basis as to coverage or for a single premium,
coverage against the peril of fire and coverage against other
perils may be issued without incorporating the exact language
of the Minnesota standard fire insurance policy, provided: such
policy or contract shall, with respect to the peril of fire, afford
the insured all the rights and benefits of the Minnesota standard
fire insurance policy and such additional benefits as the policy
provides.
Minn. Stat. § 65A.01, subd. 1.
The Association argues that the statute applies here, even though the damage was
caused by hail, because it applies to any policy that provides “coverage against the peril of
fire.” The Policy covers multiple forms of loss, including fire. Thus, the Association
argues, the Policy must afford the right s mandated under the Standard Fire Insurance
Policy, which should not be applied “retroactively based on the type of loss that occurred,”
but rather “proactively,” making the matching exclusion void. Under this construction, if
American Family wanted to avoid application of the Standard Fire Insurance Policy, it had

6
to separate its coverage provisions by peril. American Family counters that the
Association’s argument is directly contradicted by the plain language of the statute and has
been rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The statute states that, when a policy like this one includes , “on an unspecified
basis,” coverage against fire, the policy “shall, with respect to the peril of fire,” afford the
insured the rights they have under the Standard Fire Insurance Policy. Minn. Stat.
§ 65A.01, sub d. 1. The meaning of the statute is plain —by including the phrase “with
respect to the peril of fire,” the statute limits the application of the Standard Fire Insurance
Policy provisions to fire losses.
This was the conclusion of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Henning Nelson Constr.
Co. v. Fireman ’s Fund Am. Life Ins. Co. , 383 N.W.2d 645, 651 n.8 (Minn. 1986 ). In
Henning, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed, in a footnote, whether the Standard Fire
Insurance Policy’s requirements apply to losses other than fire losses under an all -risk
insurance policy. Id. There, the insurer argued t hat the court should apply the two -year
statute of limitations from the Standard Fire Insurance Policy to a “Builder’s risk” policy
in a dispute arising from the collapse of a foundational wall. Id. The supreme court rejected
the argument, stating:
While an all -risk policy such as this one falls within the
purview of the Standard Policy, the Standard Policy applies
only to losses due to fire and not to casualty losses.

. . . .

[The statutory] language indicates the Standard P olicy
provisions were meant to apply only to fire losses, even though
the policy in question may afford broader coverage. We hold,

7
therefore, that the provisions of the Standard Fire Insurance
Policy apply only to fire losses, and not nonfire losses, under
an all-risk insurance policy.

Id. (citations omitted).
And, while not precedential, in Noonan v. Am . Family Mut. Ins. Co. , the Eighth
Circuit applied Henning to reject the same argument that the Association makes here. 924
F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (8th Cir. 1986) . Analogously in Noonan, the homeowners’ roof was
damaged by a storm, no reasonably matching shingles were available, and American
Family insured the home under an all-risk policy with a matching exclusion nearly identical
to that here. Id. at 1027-28. The policyholders similarly argued that their policy ought to
provide the statutory minimum coverage of the Standard Fire Insurance Policy because
their policy insured against various perils , including fire. Id. at 1029. The Eighth Circuit
held that “the Noonans’ policy is not subject to reformation because their home was
damaged by a thunderstorm, not fire,” reasoning that “[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has
read [the statute] to mean that the minimum requirements of the standard fire insurance
policy ‘apply only to fire losses, and not nonfire losses, under an all-risk insurance policy’
like the Noonans’.” Id. at 1030 (quoting Henning, 383 N.W.2d at 651 n.8).
The Association argues that these decisions misinterpret the Standard Fire Insurance
Policy and that, in another case, Nathe Bros., Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d
341 (Minn. 2000), the supreme court did apply the Standard Fire Insurance Policy’s
provisions to a nonfire loss. Nathe Bros. involved a dispute over coverage for rain and ice
damage to the insured’s banquet hall. Id. at 343. To decide the dispute, the supreme court
interpreted a provision of the Standard Fire Insurance Policy, but it did so because the

8
insurance policy at issue contained the identical provision. See id. at 3 44; see also
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits’ Ins. Ass’n , 615 N.W.2d 349, 353 n.3 (Minn. 2000)
(distinguishing Nathe Bros. insofar as, “[i]n Nathe, it was uncontested that the proof of loss
and maintenance of suit requirements of the insurer’s pol icy and the Standard Fire
Insurance Policy were essentially the same”). In short , Nathe Bros. is distinguishable
because there, a Standard Fire Insurance Policy term was included in the parties’ policy,
whereas here, the Association is arguing that a Standard Fire Insurance Policy term should
be included. Nathe Bros. does not support the proposition that all-risk policies that include
fire coverage must meet the requirements of the Standard Fire Insurance Policy as to every
covered peril.
In sum, under the plain language of the statute and governing Minnesota case law,
the Standard Fire Insurance Policy does not apply to the Association’s loss. We therefore
need not decide whether, if it applied, the Standard Fire Insurance Polic y would preclude
a matching exclusion. The district court did not err by concluding that the Standard Fire
Insurance Policy does not void the Policy’s matching exclusion.
II. The matching exclusion applies to the facts of this case.
The Association next argues that the matching exclusion does not apply to the facts
of this case because it only excludes coverage for “undamaged material.” Again, the
matching exclusion reads:
Undamaged material
We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due
to mismatch between undamaged material and new material
used to repair or replace damaged material.

9
The Association argues that the “damaged material” here is all of the siding, not just the
siding struck by hail. By this reading, the matching exclusion only excludes coverage for
matching between one type of damaged material with another type of undamaged material.
The Association demonstrates this interpretation with an example: if it had requested
payment to match undamaged soffit s and fascia with the siding, that coverage would be
excluded. But, because its claim involves only siding and all of the siding is damaged under
the Association’s theory, the exclusion does not apply.
Words in an insurance policy “ are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning
and any ambiguity regarding coverage is construed in favor of the insured.” Am. Family
Ins. Co. v. Walser , 628 N.W.2d 605, 609 (Minn. 2001). The district court held that the
exclusion’s language was unambi guous: American Family “will not pay for undamaged
material—siding in this case —due to a mismatch between the undamaged siding and the
new siding used to repair or replace the damaged siding.” This interpretation of the
exclusion for “undamaged material” is the natural interpretation of the exclusion. The
Association’s interpretation reads in a “type” requirement that is absent from the plain
language, which speaks only of “material” generally.
But the Association argues that its interpretation—that all of the siding is “damaged
material” by virtue of the mismatch so there is no “undamaged material” to trigger the
matching exclusion—is compelled by the Minnesota Supreme C ourt’s decision in Cedar
Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 857 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 2014).
In Cedar Bluff, a condominium association insured 20 of its buildings through American
Family under a businessowners policy that covered “direct physical loss of or damage to

10
Covered Property at the pr emises . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of
Loss.” Id. at 291 (emphasis omitted). After a hail storm damaged siding on all 20 buildings,
a coverage dispute arose regarding mismatched siding. Id. The supreme court first
determined that the insurance policy’s language provid ing for replacement of damaged
property with property of “comparable material and quality” require d a “reasonable color
match” between damaged and undamaged siding. Id. The supreme court next determined
that the mismatch between the old siding and new siding available constituted a covered
loss to the “covered property,” thus obligating American Family to pay to replace all of the
siding. Id. at 295. The Association relies on this second determination to argue that Cedar
Bluff requires replacement of all the siding here.
The Association’s argument, however, does not account for the fact that the
insurance policy in Cedar Bluff had no matching exclusion. As explained above, the natural
interpretation of the matching exclusion here is to exclude the obligation to replace
undamaged, mismatched material—an obligation that, under Cedar Bluff, would otherwise
follow from the general policy provision regarding “comparable material and quality.” The
Association does not offer any binding authority suggesting that Cedar Bluff limited the
parties’ ability to include the matching exclusion in the Policy , nor does it persuasively
explain why “undamaged” is ambiguous in the context of the matching exclusion . The
language of the matching exclusion is unambiguous. Under its ordinary meaning, the
exclusion applies to the facts of this case.

11
III. The matching exclusion is unambiguous and enforceable.
The courts’ objective in interpreting the terms of an insurance policy is “to give
effect to the intent of the parties.” Thommes v. Milwaukee Ins. Co. , 641 N.W.2d 877, 879
(Minn. 2002). “ Where the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, ”
courts “effectuate the intent of the parties by interpret[ing] the policy according to plain,
ordinary sense.” Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. , 825 N.W.2d 695,
704 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted). Courts construe the language in accordance with
how “a reasonable person in the position of the insured” would understand it, rather than
asking what the insurer intended the language to mean. Canadian Universal Ins. Co. v.
Fire Watch, Inc., 258 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn. 1977). An insurance policy is ambiguous
“if it is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations.” Eng’g & Const r.
Innovations, 825 N.W.2d at 705 (quotation omitted). Though courts resolve ambiguous
terms in favor of the insured, they “will not read an ambiguity into the plain language of a
policy in order to provide coverage.” Id. (quotation omitted). Additionally, insurance
policies should not be construed in way that leads to an absurd result. Id.
The Association argues that the matching exclusion is ambiguous and unenforceable
because (1) it conflicts with the Policy’s insuring clause and the Cedar Bluff decision and
(2) the Policy’s endorsements and exclusions are irreconcilable.
A. The matching exclusion does not conflict with the Policy’s insuring
clause and the Cedar Bluff decision.

The Association argues that , because the Policy’s insuring clause guarantees
payment for “direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property . . . resulting from any

12
covered Cause of Loss,” and because the covered property is defined as the “Buildings” at
the premises, the matching exclusion conflicts with the insuring clause by distinguishing
between parts of the buildings. If the Policy only insured “discrete parts” of the buildings,
the Association argues, the insuring clause would say something like : “We will pay for
direct physical loss or damage to that part of Covered Property . . . resulting from any
Covered Cause of Loss.” Because this language is absent, the argument goes, the buildings
must be treated as indivisible units. The alleged conflict then arises because , under the
matching exclusion, American Family will only pay to replace the hail -damaged panels.
This still leaves the indivisible building unit damaged, because having mismatched siding
is a “damage” pursuant to Cedar Bluff.3
We are not persuaded that the absence of “that part” language in the insuring clause
creates a conflict in the Policy. The natural read ing of payment for “damage to buildings”
is payment for the actual damage, which typically occurs only to parts of a building. The
Association essentially argues for an interpretation that voids the matching exclusion, and
courts “will not adopt a ‘construction of an insurance policy which entirely neutralizes one
provision . . . if the contract is susceptible of another construction which gives effect to all
its provisions and is consistent with the general intent.’” Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, 825
N.W.2d at 705 (quoting Wyatt v. Wyatt , 58 N.W.2d 873, 875 ( Minn. 1953)). We thus

3 Insofar as the Association’s argument here relies on Cedar Bluff , Section II above
addresses why this case does not control. Mismatched siding was, under a policy without
a matching exclusion, covered “damage” there, but the Policy here explicitly attempts to
exclude that coverage.

13
decline to adopt the Association’s construction when a reasonable construction that does
not neutralize the matching exclusion exists.
B. The Policy’s endorsements and exclusions are not irreconcilable.

The Association raises several alleged ambiguities and contradictions in the Policy.
They are addressed in turn.
Exclusion vs. Property-Loss Condition
The Association first contends that the matching exclusion, labeled an “Exclusion
Endorsement,” confusingly purports to modify the “Property Loss Conditions” section of
the base Policy rather than the “Exclusions” section. The Association argues that something
cannot be both an exclusion and a property -loss condition. But the Association does not
explain why these terms are mutually exclusive, and the distinction seems immaterial here.
As American Family suggests, a reasonable reader of the Policy would understand the
effect of the matching exclusion, as the document’s title reads, in capital letters:
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE
READ IT CAREFULLY.
UNMATCHED PROPERTY DAMAGE EXCLUSION
ENDORSEMENT AND APPRAISAL CHANGES

The matching exclusion is included as an endorsement to the “Property Loss Conditions”
section of the Policy, which includes the “comparable material and quality” language. The
matching exclusion may indeed, as the Association suggests, fit more neatly in the
“Exclusions” section, but that fact does not create an ambiguity about its meaning. The
effect of the endorsement on the coverage provided remains clear.

14
Two Provisions Numbered “9”
The Association also points out that both the “Unmatched Property Damage
Exclusion” endorsement and the “Minnesota Changes —Townhouses” endorsement
purport to add a new provision “9” to “Paragraph E. Property Loss Conditions.” Because
the townhouses endorsement follows the matching-exclusion endorsement, the Association
contends, it should be read to replace the matching-exclusion endorsement. American
Family acknowledges that the two endorsements both add a provision “9” to the Policy but
argues that this is a mere mistake in numbering that does not necessitate voiding the
matching exclusion. The two provision 9s are unrelated in content,4 and the policy can
simply be read as having two provisions numbered “9” without changing the content.
Courts attempt to construe insurance policies in a way that gives effect to all
provisions and is consistent with the general intent. Eng’g & Const r. Innovations , 825
N.W.2d at 705. In light of this principle, we decline to void the matching exclusion but
rather read the contract as mistakenly numbering two, valid provisions “9.”
Order of Endorsements
Finally, th e Association argues that there is “irreconcilable ambiguity” as to the
order in which the matching-exclusion endorsement and the “Condominium
Enhancement” endorsement (condo endorsement) apply. It believes that the condo

4 The “Minnesota Changes—Townhouses” endorsement reads:
5. The following is added to Paragraph E. Property Loss Conditions:
9. Unit-Owner’s Insurance
A unit-owner may have other insurance covering the same property as this insurance. This
insurance is intended to be primary and not to contribute with such other insurance.

15
endorsement should be read to “res tore” the matching coverage that the matching -
exclusion endorsement attempts to remove.
An insurance policy may be deemed ambiguous where there is an irreconcilable
conflict between its provisions. Morris v. Weiss, 414 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. App. 1987)
(citing Rusthoven v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. , 387 N.W.2d 642, 644 (Minn. 1986) ).
To determine whether an ambiguity truly exists, courts “read the policy as a whole , and
will fastidiously guard against the invitation to create ambiguities where none exist.” Eng’g
& Constr. Innovations, 825 N.W.2d at 706 (citations and quotation omitted).
The condo endorsement provides additional coverage and modifies various parts of
the base policy, including portions of the “Property Loss Conditions.” Applicable here, the
condo endorsement modifies the base policy by amending provision 5.d of section I,
paragraph E, which deals with loss payment and , specifically, valuation of “Covered
Property.” By contrast, the matching-exclusion endorsement adds a provision 9 to the same
paragraph E . The condo endorsement’s modification to p aragraph E.5.d removes a
payment limit otherwise present in the base policy, leaving intact surrounding language in
the provision regarding replacement-cost calculation. It does not change the explanation in
paragraph E.5.d.(1)(a)(i) that replacement cost can be calculated with reference to “the cost
to replace . . . the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material
and quality.” It is this language —language originall y in the base policy —that the
Association claims “restores” matching coverage. This language, though, appears to be in
the condo e ndorsement merely because it continues to be present , unchanged, in the
replacement paragraph E.5.d. (1)(a). Nothing indicates that the inclusion of unchanged

16
language in paragraph E.5.d. (1)(a) in the condo e ndorsement substantively changes the
policy as suggested by the Association.
And, regardless of whether the condo endorsement can somehow be read to provide
coverage, the matching exclusion still unambiguously revokes any such coverage.
Provision 9 follows provision 5 in the “Loss Payment” section and specifies that replacing
undamaged, mismatched siding is not covered by the Policy. The matching exclusion ha s
more specific language, and , under the natural reading of each, the two endorsements do
not conflict. Again, we attempt to construe insurance policies in a way that gives effect to
all provisions and is consistent with the general intent. Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, 825
N.W.2d at 705. Thus, we find no “irreconcilable ambiguity” as to the order in which the
matching-exclusion endorsement and the condo endorsement apply.
IV. American Family’s construction of the Policy does not violate the reasonable
expectations of the policyholder.

The Association’s final argument is that the matching exclusion is unenforceable
because it violates the reasonable expectations of the policyholder.
The doctrine of reasonable expectations can operate to protect the reasonable
expectations of the policyholder even where “a painstaking study of the policy provisions
would have negated those expectations.” Atwater Creamery Co. v. W . Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.,
366 N.W.2d 271, 277 (Minn. 1985) . The supreme court adopted this doctrine in Atwater
but has since limited its scope. Id.; see Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co, 749 N.W.2d 41, 48-49
(Minn. 2008) (reviewing cases that declined to expand Atwater). In Atwater, the policy in
question included insu rance against burglary that buried an “evidence of forcible entry”

17
requirement in its definition of burglary. Atwater, 366 N.W.2d at 274. When burglars
entered the insured’s building and left without leaving visible marks of their entry, the
insurer refused to pay. Id. at 275-76. The supreme court held that , even though the policy
technically excluded coverage, the policy should “not be interpreted so as to defeat the
reasonable expectations of the purchaser of the policy.” Id. at 278-79.
In Carlson, the su preme court surveyed the reasonable expectation doctrine’s
application since Atwater and determined that an earlier case “limits Atwater, if not to its
specific facts, at least to circumstances where the exclusion from coverage was
unreasonably hidden.” Carlson, 749 N.W.2d at 49 (referencing Bd. of Regents of the Univ.
of Minn. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 517 N.W.2d 888, 889 (Minn. 1994)). The court went on
to hold that it was unwilling to expand the doctrine beyond “its current use,” which is “for
resolving ambiguity and for correcting extreme situations like that in Atwater, where a
party’s coverage is significantly different from what the party reasonably believes it has
paid for and where the only notice the party has of that difference is in an obscure and
unexpected provision.” Id.
The Association does not explain how the matching exclusion here was “hidden,”
except to say that “the placement of this major exclusion in the ‘Property Loss Conditions’
section, rather than in ‘Exclusions’ where it belongs is obviously misleading.” This
argument was addressed above in Section III(B) and is unpersuasive here as well, as the
matching exclusion is its own endorsement with capitalized, bolded letters at the top that
read:

18
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE
READ IT CAREFULLY.
UNMATCHED PROPERTY DAMAGE EXCLUSION
ENDORSEMENT AND APPRAISAL CHANGES

The Association also asserts that “American Family did not inform the Association
of its purported construction of this important condition.” The reasonable expectations
doctrine, though, doe s not absolve the policy holder of their duty to read the policy.
Carlson, 749 N.W.2d at 48. The Association has not shown that this is one of the “extreme
situations” that warrants correction of the policy. See Carlson, 749 N.W.2d at 49.
Affirmed.