Appeals Court Reverses Erie Insurance Roof Verdict
Ohio's Second Appellate District ordered a new trial after finding a flawed jury question undermined a verdict over a Piqua commercial roof claim.
Updated on Nov. 3, 2026 in Insurance
Live Poll
Do you trust insurance companies to pay fair claims when you file one?
Ohio's Second Appellate District unanimously reversed a jury verdict for Erie Insurance Company and ordered a new trial on a breach of contract claim tied to a July 2023 windstorm that damaged a commercial building at 301 Kienle Drive in Piqua. The court found the trial judge's revised jury question undermined the jury's proper function and rendered the verdict unreliable.
Why it matters
The ruling signals that how a jury question is framed can determine the outcome of a property insurance dispute, even when the underlying damage is modest. For Ohio policyholders and businesses, it underscores that claims involving partial roof damage can turn on whether a repair is feasible and how the evidence is presented.
The roof replacement cost is approximately $70,000, compared with a $2,500 policy deductible that Erie estimated the repairs would fall below. The windstorm damaged four shingles, six appliques and one ridge cap, and the roofing contractor said the roof could not be repaired without breaking the seal on the shingle beneath.
The players
Erie Insurance Company
Erie Insurance is a Pennsylvania-based insurer that writes commercial and personal property policies across many U.S. states, including Ohio.
Second Appellate District of Ohio
The Second Appellate District is one of Ohio's twelve intermediate appellate courts, based in Dayton, that hears appeals from trial courts in the surrounding counties.
The details
A roofing contractor attempted the repair but reported the roof could not be fixed without breaking the seal on the shingle beneath, and Erie did not send anyone to observe the attempt or re-inspect afterward. The trial judge added the words 'beyond the repair of four shingles, six appliques and one ridge cap' to Erie's proposed jury question and declined a jury request to explain how an Ohio regulation on damage from repairs applied.
Timeline
July 2023: A windstorm damaged the commercial roof at 301 Kienle Drive in Piqua, Ohio.
October 30, 2026: The Second Appellate District unanimously reversed the jury verdict for Erie.
Roadmap
The case turns on how Ohio law treats partial wind damage that may or may not be repairable without wider replacement, a question that has direct consequences for commercial roof claims statewide. The appeals court's focus on the jury question suggests future disputes of this kind will hinge as much on procedural framing as on the physical extent of the damage.
Commercial property owners in Ohio who file wind damage claims may face disputes over whether partial repairs are feasible, which can affect whether a claim falls below their deductible. Policyholders should document repair attempts and insurer inspections, since the appeals court's ruling highlights how the absence of re-inspection can shape a case.
The takeaway
Property owners pursuing wind damage claims should keep detailed records of any repair attempts and request insurer re-inspections, since how the facts are framed for a jury can prove as decisive as the damage itself.
Further reading
For related coverage, see Insurance in Ohio's personal finance news.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Insurance Business.
Live Poll
Do you trust insurance companies to pay fair claims when you file one?
