Coinsurance, Replacement Cost, and the Code Official
Ridgeline Holdings owns a 40-year-old retail building in Salem with a replacement cost of $1,200,000 and an actual cash value of $700,000. It insures the building with a $700,000 limit, an 80% coinsurance clause, replacement cost valuation, a $5,000 deductible, and no agreed value. In June a fire causes $300,000 of replacement cost damage; depreciation on the damaged components is $60,000. Separately, Salem's code official requires $40,000 of work to bring undamaged portions of the structure up to current seismic and egress code before the building can be reoccupied. The policy includes an ordinance or law extension equal to 10% of the building limit. Ridgeline's controller argues the insurer must pay the full $300,000 because 'the limit is $700,000 and the loss is only $300,000.'
1. Compute the building payment and explain why the controller is wrong.
Read the worked answer
Coinsurance compares what the insured carried with what it should have carried:
- Required limit: 80% × $1,200,000 = $960,000
- Carried: $700,000
- Ratio: $700,000 ÷ $960,000 = 0.7292
- Adjusted loss: $300,000 × 0.7292 = $218,750
- Less deductible: $218,750 − $5,000 = $213,750
The controller is confusing a limit with a sufficiency test. Coinsurance does not ask whether the loss fits under the limit; it asks whether the insured bought its fair share of the value at risk. Ridgeline bought about 73% of what it promised to buy, so it absorbs about 27% of every loss - including small ones. Had the building been insured to $960,000, the payment would have been $300,000 − $5,000 = $295,000, a difference of $81,250 on a $260,000 premium decision.
2. How is the $40,000 code-required work handled, and what if it had cost $90,000?
Read the worked answer
Ordinance or law coverage responds to the extra cost of complying with current code when repairing covered damage - costs the base policy would otherwise exclude. The extension here is 10% of the building limit: 0.10 × $700,000 = $70,000 available. The $40,000 of seismic and egress work fits inside that sublimit and is payable in addition to the building loss; it is a separate bucket, not part of the $218,750.
If the code work cost $90,000, only $70,000 would be available and $20,000 would be Ridgeline's own money. This is the trap in percentage-based extensions: the sublimit is tied to the carried limit, so an underinsured building gets an underinsured ordinance or law bucket too. The penalty compounds.
One more limit to flag: the extension responds to undamaged portions only to the extent the form grants 'undamaged portion' coverage. A form that covers only demolition and increased construction cost may leave the value of the torn-down undamaged wall uninsured.
3. Suppose the policy had been written on an actual cash value basis instead. Compute the payment and explain the counterintuitive result.
Read the worked answer
On an ACV basis, both the loss and the coinsurance denominator shrink:
- ACV loss: $300,000 − $60,000 depreciation = $240,000
- Coinsurance requirement: 80% × $700,000 ACV = $560,000
- Carried $700,000 exceeds $560,000, so the ratio is 1.0 - no penalty
- Payment: $240,000 − $5,000 = $235,000
So the ACV policy pays $235,000 while the replacement cost policy pays $213,750. That looks backwards, but the arithmetic is sound: replacement cost valuation raised the coinsurance denominator from $560,000 to $960,000 while the limit stayed at $700,000.
The lesson for a client is not 'buy ACV.' It is that valuation basis and limit selection are one decision, not two. Choosing replacement cost without raising the limit converts a valuation upgrade into a coinsurance penalty. The correct fix is a limit near $960,000, or an agreed value provision that removes the coinsurance test entirely.