An insured has a small kitchen fire that causes fire and smoke damage to the range, hood and cabinets in the area of the fire. In addition, other cabinets in the L-shaped kitchen are just smoke-damaged.

The carrier says it will only cover the two cabinets that were damaged by the flames of the fire—not the rest of the cabinets that were smoke-damaged.

Already, the kitchen contains two different sets of cabinets because the prior homeowner had installed additional cabinets above the original upper cabinets, filling the gap between the upper cabinets and the ceiling. The insured is concerned that none of the cabinets will match and there will now be three different styles of cabinets, if the insurer doesn't replace all of the upper cabinets.

In addition, the insured is also worried about the smoke smell getting completely out of the upper cabinets.

Does the insurance carrier have a duty to replace all of the upper cabinets, so they will match? Should the upper cabinets be considered a set?

The issue is exactly the same as the shingle-matching, siding-matching and carpet-matching issues that have been contentious for as long as there’s been replacement coverage. A literal reading of the ISO HO-3 policy in this case shows that only direct damage is covered, not the consequential indirect loss of value due to mismatching.

Some state laws govern the matching issue. For example, California § 2695.9. Additional Standards Applicable to First Party Residential and Commercial Property Insurance Policies says, "When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance."

Under the ISO HO policy, the pair or set clause says:

D. Loss To A Pair Or Set
In case of loss to a pair or set we may elect to:

1. Repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value before the loss; or
2. Pay the difference between actual cash value of the property before and after the loss.

While this clause has traditionally been used to adjust losses involving sets of china, golf clubs and clothing, there is nothing in the policy that says an integral grouping of kitchen cabinets cannot constitute a "set." Virtual University experts address the topic in, “Direct vs. Consequential Damage in the Homeowners Policy.”

The faculty’s consensus is that this isn’t covered unless the insurance agent can cite a legal precedent that specifically addresses this in statute or a court case, or unless he can convince the insurer that the pair or set condition applies.