Meadows of Bloomfield Association, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1775

Meadows of Bloomfield Association,
Respondent,

vs.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
Appellant.

Filed August 7, 2023
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CV-21-187

Adina R. Bergstrom, Brock P. Alton, Sauro & Bergstrom, PLLC, Oakdale, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Scott G. Williams, Haws-KM, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company challenges summary judgment
confirming an appraisal award in favor of respondent Meadows of Bloomfield Association
relating to storm-damaged buildings. State Farm argues that (1) the appraisal panel
improperly required it to pay to replace the shingles on all 37 townhomes even though the
2
shingles did not match before the storm and (2) the district court erred by directing entry
of judgment before the shingles were replaced. We affirm.
FACTS
Meadows of Bloomfield manages 37 townhome buildings in Rosemount. In early
August 2018, a wind and hailstorm damaged the soft metals on all 37 roofs. Repairing the
metal portion of each roof required removal and replacement of some shingles.
At the time of the storm, State Farm insured Meadows under a businessowners’
insurance policy that covers “direct physical loss” to covered property. The policy’s Loss
Payment clause describes how State Farm will meet its coverage obligations:
e. Loss Payment
In the event of loss covered by this policy:
(1) At our option, we will either:
(a) Pay the value of lost or damaged property;
. . . .

The policy further provides that the value of covered property is
determined based on replacement cost:
We will determine e.(1)(a) in accordance with the
applicable terms of Paragraph e.(4) below . . . .
. . . .
(4) . . . [W]e will determine the value of Covered Property
as follows:
(a) At replacement cost without deduction for
depreciation, as of the time of loss, subject to the
following:
i. We will pay the cost to repair or replace, after
application of the deductible and without deduction
for depreciation, but not more than the least of the
following amounts:
. . . .
2) The cost to replace, on the described premises,
the lost or damaged property with other property
3
of comparable material, quality and used for
the same purpose . . . .

(Emphasis added.)
After receiving Meadows’ storm claim, State Farm hired Donan Engineering to
inspect the damage. Donan Engineering concluded that hail had damaged the soft metals
on the roofs but did not damage the shingles. Donan’s report also stated that some of the
roofs had mismatched shingles, revealing a history of prior damage and repairs.
Because the parties were unable to agree on the amount of loss, Meadows demanded
an appraisal, as required by the policy. The appraisal panel considered the parties’
submissions and arguments and visited the site in October 2020. The appraisers inspected
the roofs of a small number of buildings. On December 14, the appraisal panel issued its
award. The appraisal panel determined that all 37 buildings sustained direct hail damage
to the soft metals on the roofs in the amount of $753,289. The appraisal panel also
determined that replacing the metal roof material required that a certain number of shingles
be removed and replaced. But because the proposed replacement shingles were not a
reasonable match for the existing shingles, the appraisal panel determined that all of the
shingles needed to be replaced at a cost of $1,862,000.
1
Meadows commenced this action, alleging breach of contract and requesting
declaratory relief and damages. State Farm denied the allegations and moved to vacate the
appraisal award. Meadows moved to confirm the award and for summary judgment. The

1 In 2022, the appraisal panel confirmed its award and noted that seven of the buildings had
prior roof repairs.
4
district court granted Meadows’ motion. After the district court denied State Farm’s
request for leave to seek reconsideration, State Farm appealed.
Meadows subsequently moved the district court to recover attorney fees and costs.
After reviewing the motion, the district court vacated the summary judgment. This court
dismissed the appeal. The parties completed additional discovery regarding prior roof
repairs and again submitted cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court again
entered judgment in favor of Meadows based on the appraisal award. State Farm requested
that the district court grant it leave to file a motion for reconsider ation, arguing that the
judgment improperly required it to pay replacement cost benefits before the work was
completed. Meadows submitted a letter opposing the request and attached invoices
documenting that the shingles had been replaced. The district court denied State Farm’s
request and directed entry of judgment, concluding that “[t]he scope of the repairs awarded
by the Appraisal Report and confirmed by this Court have now been completed.”
State Farm appeals.
DECISION
I. The appraisal panel’s award is consistent with the insurance policy and law.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that “there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. On appeal from summary judgment, we review questions
of law, including the interpretation of an insurance policy and its application to undisputed
facts, de novo. Com. Bank v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 870 N.W.2d 770, 773 (Minn. 2015).
5
When interpreting an insurance policy, we construe the policy as a whole and give
unambiguous language its plain and ordinary meaning. Midwest Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Wolters, 831 N.W.2d 628, 636 (Minn. 2013). We construe “any ambiguity regarding
coverage . . . in favor of the insured.” Am. Fam. Ins. Co. v. Walser, 628 N.W.2d 605, 609
(Minn. 2001). Neither party argues that the provision at issue here is ambiguous.
Generally, an appraisal panel has the “authority to decide the ‘amount of loss’ but
may not construe the policy or decide whether the insurer should pay.” Quade v. Secura
Ins., 814 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Minn. 2012). But in ascertaining the amount of loss, appraisers
may resolve “questions of law or fact, which are involved as mere incidents to a
determination of the amount of loss or damage.” Id. at 707 (quotation omitted). We defer
“to the appraisal panel’s factual determination as to the amount of loss” because of
Minnesota’s public policy favoring appraisals. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n, Inc.
v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 857 N.W.2d 290, 296 (Minn. 2014).
State Farm does not dispute that the 2018 storm caused a covered loss that required
replacement of the soft metal portions of all 37 roofs. And State Farm does not dispute
that a certain number of shingles must be removed to accommodate that work and that the
available replacement shingles do not match the existing shingles. But State Farm contends
that the appraisal panel erred by awarding $1,862,000 because the insurance po licy does
not require it to provide a reasonable match for shingles when, at the time of the loss, the
shingles did not match.
The question of an insurer’s obligation to ensure that covered property “match”
following repair or replacement is not a new one. In Cedar Bluff, a hailstorm damaged all
6
of the roofs and at least one panel of siding on each of 20 buildings. 857 N.W.2d at 291.
The color of the 11-year-old siding had faded, and replacement panels were not available
in the same color. An appraisal panel awarded the cost of replacing all of the siding. As
in this case, the insurance policy provided coverage for the cost of replacing “damaged
property with other property . . . [o]f comparable material and quality.” Id. (alteration in
original). Our supreme court interpreted the phrase “comparable material and quality” to
mean “a reasonable color match between new and existing siding when replacing damaged
siding.” Id. at 294. And the supreme court concluded that the appraisal panel applied the
correct legal standard when it determined that there was no reasonable match available for
the existing siding and awarded the cost of replacing all of the siding. Id. at 295.
This court answered the question differently based on distinct policy language in
Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners ’ Ass’n v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., No. A19-0662,
2019 WL 6284263 (Minn. App. Nov. 25, 2019), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 2020). 2 In
Pleasure Creek, a 2017 hailstorm damaged siding on 14 covered buildings. 2019 WL
6284263, at *1. An appraisal panel determined that the replacement siding did not
reasonably match the existing siding, so it awarded the cost of replacing all of the siding.
Id. at *2. American Family declined to pay the cost to replace siding that was not hail
damaged based on its matching exclusion. The exclusion provided, in relevant part, that
“[w]e will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between

2 While Pleasure Creek is a nonprecedential decision, it is highly persuasive because it is
a recent case and involves similar facts. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c) (stating
“nonprecedential opinions may be cited as persuasive authority”).
7
undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.” This
court concluded that the exclusion was enforceable. Id. at *5.
State Farm concedes that its policy does not contain a matching exclusion but
contends that Cedar Bluff is inapposite because the item to be matched—shingles—was
not uniform in appearance at the time of the loss. This argument is unavailing. Cedar Bluff
did not focus its analysis on the condition of the siding prior to the storm. Rather , the
supreme court interpreted “comparable material and quality” to include matching siding
and deferred to the appraisal panel’s conclusion that no reasonable siding match was
available. Cedar Bluff, 857 N.W.2d at 294-95 . This makes sense because replacement-
cost coverage is not tied to the condition of the covered property at the time of the loss.
State Farm’s reliance on Elm Creek Courthome Ass’n, Inc. v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., 971 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. App. 2022), rev. denied (Minn. May 17, 2022), is no
more persuasive.3 In Elm Creek, a hailstorm damaged the siding on 14 buildings. An
appraisal panel awarded the cost of replacing all of the siding on four buildings because of
matching. 971 N.W.2d at 735. And the appraisal panel determined that undamaged siding
from those buildings should be “harvested” to replace damaged siding on the ten other
buildings. Id. Elm Creek objected, contending the use of “harvested” siding is prohibited

3 State Farm also directs this court to nonbinding caselaw from other jurisdictions,
including Villas at Winding Ridge v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 942 F.3d 824, 828 (7th
Cir. 2019). But in Villas at Winding Ridge, the appraisal panel awarded an allowance for
shingle repairs on only 13 out of 33 buildings. Villas at Winding Ridge, 942 F.3d at 832.
The Seventh Circuit distinguished Cedar Bluff from Villas at Winding Ridge because in
Cedar Bluff the appraisal panel issued an award for the total replacement of all siding. Id.
at 832-33. Villas at Winding Ridge is similarly distinguishable from this case.
8
by the loss payment provision of the insurance policy that provides loss will be calculated
“without deduction for depreciation.” Id. at 737. We concluded that the policy did not
prohibit harvesting because the plain meaning of “without deduction for depreciation” does
not relate to a method of repair; it provides “a method of accounting that disclaims
subtracting the property’s inherent loss of value over time from the amount to be paid as
the [replacement cost value] of the property.” Id.
Finally, State Farm contends that the appraisal award provides Meadows a
windfall—a substantially better roof than existed before the storm —because Meadows
previously replaced shingles “with no concern for whether or not the replacement shingles
‘matched’ the originals.”
4 But that is an inherent feature of replacement-cost coverage,
distinguishing it from actual-cash -value coverage. Brooks Realty, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co.,
149 N.W.2d 494, 501 (Minn. 1967) (applying broad-evidence rule in calculating actual
cash value, including actual value of building at the time of loss); see Wilcox v. State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co., 874 N.W.2d 780, 785 (Minn. 2016) (noting that embedded-labor-cost
depreciation may be considered under broad- evidence rule). State Farm could have but
did not exclude coverage for undamaged portions of covered property due to mismatch
with damaged portions replaced with new material. On this record, we conclude that the
appraisal panel applied the correct legal standard when it determined that “the proposed

4 State Farm also asserts that the appraisal panel did not have sufficient evidence as to the
number of buildings that had prior shingle/roof repairs. But the insurance policy requires
State Farm to pay replacement-cost value regardless of the shingles’ prior condition.
Because there is no dispute that repairing the soft metals required removal and replacement
of shingles on every roof and the replacement shingles did not match any of the existing
shingles, any questions regarding the extent of prior shingle damage are irrelevant.
9
matching shingles observed at the inspection . . . [did not] represent[] a reasonable match,”
and the district court did not err by “giv[ing] deference to the appraisal panel’s factual
determination as to the amount of loss.” Cedar Bluff, 857 N.W.2d at 296.
II. The district court did not err by entering judgment before the shingles were
replaced.

Summary judgment was entered on October 17, 2022. The judgment directed State
Farm to “pay the remaining appraisal award for Replacement Cost Value benefits under
the policy as the buildings are repaired pursuant to the language in the insurance contract.”
On November 2, State Farm requested leave to file a motion to reconsider, asserting that
the judgment required it to pay replacement cost benefits before the shingle-replacement
work had been completed. 5 On November 7, Meadows submitted a letter opposing
reconsideration. The letter attached invoices (from June 1, 2022, through August 18, 2022)
documenting that the shingles had been replaced. The district court denied State Farm’s
request, concluding that “[t]he scope of the repairs awarded by the Appraisal Report and
confirmed by this Court have now been completed.”
State Farm argues that the district court erred by considering the invoices in
connection with its reconsideration request, citing State v. Allwine, 963 N.W.2d 178, 191
(Minn. 2021). We are not persuaded. In Allwine, the criminal defendant moved the district
court to reconsider its denial of postconviction relief and submitted new evidence in the
form of affidavits. 963 N.W.2d at 185. The supreme court concluded that the district court

5 “Motions to reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the court, which
will be granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac.
115.11.
10
did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, quoting the 1997 advisory
committee comment to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.11, which states that “[m]otions for
reconsideration are not opportunities for presentation of facts or arguments available when
the prior motion was considered.” Id. at 190; see also Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., 560
N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. App. 1997) (concluding that evidence known at the time of the
summary-judgment motion should have been produced at that time), rev. denied (Minn.
Apr. 24, 1997).
While we agree that a party may not use the occasion of a reconsideration motion
to present evidence that was available at the time of the prior motion, that is not what
happened here. Unlike the affidavits the defendant submitted in Allwine, the invoices are
not evidence that Meadows could have presented with the summary-judgment motions.
The last invoice (which documents completion of the work) is dated August 18, 2022—
almost two months after the summary-judgment hearing. Moreover, the invoices are not
relevant to the issues disputed on summary judgment. They are simply proof that a
condition imposed by the court, that the shingles be replaced before payment, had been
met. See 3A Jevon D. Bindman, et al., Minnesota Practice § 115.11 (2023 ed.) (“Material
submitted with the motion may be germane to any possible review of the question of
whether modification, if granted, was appropriate; it will not be considered to determine if
the question was correctly decided initially.”). State Farm does not cite a case that prohibits
the district court from considering such evidence.
Finally, State Farm contends that it was not given the chance to determine what
Meadows paid to replace the shingles. This argument is unavailing. The appraisal panel
11
was charged with determining the amount of loss through a process in which State Farm
participated. See Quade, 814 N.W.2d at 706 (stating “appraisers have authority to decide
the amount of loss” (quotation omitted)). The district court did not err by confirming the
appraisal panel’s award. And the record establishes the work was completed and payment
was due at the time judgment was entered.
Affirmed.