One new slope against a weathered roof: when the law says it has to match.
Your insurer will replace the damaged slope — with shingles a visibly different color from the rest of the roof. In most states that's the end of the conversation. In eleven, a statute, a regulation, or a leading court case says the result must be a reasonably uniform appearance, and the conversation changes. Here is the honest map.
| State | Type | The rule, in short |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Rule | 3 AAC 26.090: if replacement property does not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace the property in the area to provide a reasonably uniform appearance — interior and exterior losses. The claimant pays no betterment cost, only the applicable deductible. |
| California | Rule | 10 CCR § 2695.9: 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 — residential and commercial claims. |
| Connecticut | Rule | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-316e: when a covered loss requires replacement of an item and the replacement does not match adjacent items in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace all such items with material of like kind and quality so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance — interior and exterior. |
| Florida | Rule | Fla. Stat. § 626.9744: when a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas. |
| Iowa | Rule | Iowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.44: when replacement items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as is necessary to result in a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight — interior and exterior losses. |
| Kentucky | Rule | 806 KAR 12:095 § 9(1)(b): if replaced items do not reasonably match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance — interior and exterior, on fire-and-extended-coverage-type policies. The insured bears no cost over the deductible. |
| Minnesota | Leading case | Case law: Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Ass'n v. American Family (Minn. 2014) — 'comparable material and quality' does not require an exact color match, but the replacement must be a reasonable color match to the existing material. |
| Nebraska | Rule | 210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, § 010: when replacement items do not reasonably match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance — interior and exterior, under fire and extended coverage policies. |
| Ohio | Rule | Ohio Admin. Code 3901-1-54: when an interior or exterior loss requires replacement of an item and the replaced item does not match the quality, color, or size of the item suffering the loss, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as results in a reasonably comparable appearance — fire and extended coverage policies. |
| Rhode Island | Rule | 230 RICR 20-40-2: when replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall replace all such items so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance — interior and exterior. The first-party claimant bears no cost over the applicable deductible. |
| Tennessee | Rule | Industry surveys cite Tennessee's unfair-claims-settlement rule, 0780-01-05-.10, for a reasonably-uniform-appearance standard on matching. We did not re-verify the rule's text at build time — treat this cell as unconfirmed until checked against the rule. |
Citations read at build (checked Oct 20, 2026). One caution, kept visible on purpose: IRMI's widely-cited survey lists a Tennessee matching rule (Rule 0780-01-05-.10) that we could not read in full primary text at build time — it is flagged UNVERIFIED in the state table rather than repeated here as fact. And the count itself ("twenty states have matching laws" appears in roofer marketing) did not survive primary checking; the eleven above are what the texts support.
No rule does not mean no argument. Three softer doors remain: your policy's own language (some policies promise "like kind and quality" more broadly than the minimum), the appraisal clause (matching disputes are amount-of-loss disputes — the clause reaches them), and the documented-supplement route: a roofer's written statement that the specified material is discontinued, with the manufacturer's notice attached, converts many "we won't" answers into scope negotiations. The kit's supplement pack organizes exactly that packet.
One payment, yours to keep. We never ask you to upload your policy — you file everything yourself. See everything inside the kit →