Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insured’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking to require defendant-insurance company to reimburse plaintiff for hail damage to plaintiff’s roof, even though defendant took position that said hail damage was only “cosmetic,” and thus not covered under policy. Policy, which covered any physical loss or damage to roof, covered instant claim, even though damage to roof did not diminish functionality of roof. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying portion of plaintiff’s summary judgment seeking damages for alleged bad-faith in defendant's initial refusal to cover instant claim since defendant could have taken reasonable, although mistaken, belief that policy did not cover claims that did not diminish functionality of roof. Fact that defendant’s interpretation of its policy differed from published stance taken by American Association of Insurance Services did not require different result.