Another line of argument was that applying the valuation section to repairs would create redundant language in the policy, effectively equating the value of damaged property, the cost of repair, and the cost of replacement. The court conceded the overlap but found it was a feature of the policy’s own language, not a reason to discard it. Insurance contracts, the court observed, are not strangers to overlapping terms.
Sixth Circuit backs insurer’s right to deduct depreciation on unrepaired property claim
By Awais
