- Kentucky's matching regulation, 806 KAR 12:095, requires insurers to make repairs look reasonably uniform with existing materials. When the original shingles are discontinued, matching often isn't practicable through partial repair — which generally supports expanded scope.
- Four scenarios drive most KY discontinued-shingle disputes: exact-shingle discontinued, color reformulated, manufacturer changed specifications, and supply-chain unavailability. Each scenario has its own documentation requirements and its own argument structure.
- Documentation that supports the matching argument includes manufacturer discontinuation letters, color-availability sheets, distributor inventory reports, contractor statements about practical matching feasibility, and photos showing the actual visible mismatch a partial repair would create.
- When carriers refuse to apply 806 KAR 12:095 to discontinued-shingle scenarios where matching clearly isn't feasible, the conduct may push toward Wittmer bad-faith analysis with the 12% statutory interest, attorney's fees, and potentially punitive damages on the right facts.
- At Property People Law, we review KY discontinued-shingle claims and the carrier's scope at no cost. Our KY residential and commercial property damage work is generally on contingency — we only get paid from the recovery, not your pocket.
Discontinued shingles drive a substantial share of contested Kentucky roof claims. The pattern is recurring: a storm damages part of a roof, the carrier scopes a partial repair, and the property owner's roofer reports that the original shingle is no longer manufactured. The carrier's scope — which assumed matching materials would be available — doesn't reflect the actual market reality. The property owner's options are to accept the partial repair (which will leave the roof visibly mismatched), pay out of pocket for the expanded scope, or push back on the carrier's scope using KY's matching regulation.
This article focuses specifically on the discontinued-shingle scenario because it's where 806 KAR 12:095 — Kentucky's matching regulation — does the most legal work. The regulation is general; it covers all repairs, not just roofs. But discontinued shingles produce some of the clearest cases where partial repair can't achieve the regulation's required uniformity, which means the regulation generally supports expanded scope. The argument has to be made carefully, with the right documentation, but the legal framework is there.
This article walks through what 806 KAR 12:095 actually says, four common discontinued-shingle scenarios, what documentation supports the matching argument in each one, when carrier conduct may push toward bad-faith analysis, and how we at Property People Law approach contested KY discontinued-shingle claims. Every policy is different, every claim turns on its own facts.
What 806 KAR 12:095 actually says about matching
806 KAR 12:095 is the Kentucky Department of Insurance regulation that establishes the standard for replacement materials when insurers handle property damage claims. The regulation generally requires that when materials are replaced as part of a covered repair, the repair be made with materials of like kind and quality — and that the resulting repair look reasonably uniform with the existing undamaged materials.
The regulation doesn't require perfect matching. It requires reasonable uniformity. Slight color variations from weathering of existing materials, minor texture differences between new and aged materials, and similar small differences generally fall within reasonable uniformity. The regulation reaches its real work when the partial repair would leave a visibly different repair from what surrounds it — where the difference is obvious, not subtle, and where any reasonable person would recognize that the repair doesn't match the rest.
The October 2023 KY DOI advisory on the matching regulation provided additional guidance. While advisories don't have the force of statutes, the advisory established regulatory expectations about how carriers should handle matching disputes — and carriers whose conduct post-advisory continues patterns the advisory called out may face stronger inferences when 806 KAR 12:095 is contested in subsequent claims.
The regulation operates alongside the policy's own like-kind-and-quality language. Most KY homeowners policies have policy-contract language that mirrors what the regulation requires. The combination — policy language plus regulatory backstop — generally creates a stronger argument than either source alone would provide.
Four common discontinued-shingle scenarios
Discontinued-shingle disputes generally fall into one of four scenarios. Each has distinct facts, distinct documentation needs, and a slightly different argument structure under 806 KAR 12:095.
Scenario 1: Exact shingle discontinued by the manufacturer
The cleanest scenario. The original shingle product — by manufacturer, by product line, by color — is no longer in production. The manufacturer can confirm in writing that the specific product was discontinued and the date of discontinuation. Replacement requires either an exact substitution (rarely possible) or a different product that won't visibly match.
Documentation: a discontinuation letter from the manufacturer, distributor inventory reports confirming no remaining stock, contractor statement that no matching product is currently available in the market. With this documentation, the argument under 806 KAR 12:095 is straightforward — reasonable uniformity isn't achievable through partial repair because the matching product doesn't exist. Expanded scope (slope replacement or full-roof replacement, depending on the damage pattern) generally is the only way to honor the regulation's uniformity requirement.
Scenario 2: Color reformulated
The product line still exists, but the specific color was reformulated. The new color is similar but visibly different from the original — different undertones, different granule blend, different overall appearance. This scenario is harder than full discontinuation because the carrier may argue that the new color is "close enough."
Documentation: manufacturer color-availability sheets showing the original color is no longer available, photos showing the actual side-by-side appearance of new vs. existing material, contractor statement that the new color produces a visibly different roof. The argument is that 806 KAR 12:095 requires reasonable uniformity — and that a visible color shift in a side-by-side comparison generally exceeds what "reasonable uniformity" allows. Whether the argument succeeds depends on how visible the shift actually is and what the documentation supports.
Scenario 3: Manufacturer changed specifications
The product line and color are nominally the same, but the manufacturer changed specifications — different shingle weight, different granule composition, different dimensional profile. The new product won't lie flat against the old or won't weather the same way. Even if the color is approximately right initially, the long-term appearance may diverge.
Documentation: manufacturer specification sheets from the original installation period (if available) and current production. Contractor statement explaining how the specification change affects appearance and function. Photos showing how the new and old products lie against each other. The argument is that specification changes affect both the visible match and the functional integration — supporting expanded scope when the new material won't actually integrate with the existing roof.
Scenario 4: Supply-chain unavailability
The product is theoretically still in production but practically unavailable through normal supply channels. Lead times are months out, no local distributor carries stock, or the product can only be obtained in bulk quantities that don't make sense for a small repair. Carriers may argue this isn't a true discontinuation because the product technically exists somewhere.
Documentation: distributor inventory reports showing no available stock, contractor quotes from multiple suppliers confirming lead times or minimum-order quantities, manufacturer statements about regional availability. The argument is that the regulation requires practicable repair — and a partial repair that requires a six-month wait, a thousand-square bulk order for a hundred-square repair, or shipping from another state generally isn't practicable. Whether this scenario succeeds varies more than the other three; it depends on how thoroughly the unavailability is documented.
How carrier conduct may push toward Wittmer bad-faith analysis
Most KY discontinued-shingle disputes are contract disputes. The carrier and the property owner disagree about whether 806 KAR 12:095 requires expanded scope; the question is which side has the better argument on the specific facts. That's ordinary contract analysis.
Where the analysis may push toward Wittmer bad-faith territory is when the carrier refuses to apply 806 KAR 12:095 to scenarios where matching clearly isn't feasible. Refusing to acknowledge documented discontinuation evidence. Refusing to investigate manufacturer or distributor availability. Insisting on partial repair when the documented physical mismatch obviously exceeds reasonable uniformity. Applying the regulation so narrowly that it has no practical effect on the claim.
Under Wittmer, the elements are: coverage existed under the policy, the carrier denied or refused to pay without a reasonable basis, and the carrier either knew there was no reasonable basis or acted with reckless disregard. Aggressive refusal to apply 806 KAR 12:095 in clear discontinued-shingle cases may meet the second and third elements. When that happens, available remedies on the right facts may include attorney's fees, consequential damages, the 12% statutory interest under KRS 304.12-235, and in some circumstances punitive damages.
See our KY bad-faith pillar for the full Wittmer framework. The intersection of matching disputes and Wittmer analysis is where many KY matching cases that move beyond contract dispute end up.
How Property People Law approaches KY discontinued-shingle disputes
When a KY property owner reaches out about a discontinued-shingle dispute, the first conversation is free and the framework is consistent. We read the policy carefully — the loss settlement provision, the like-kind-and-quality language, any matching-related endorsements, the conditions section including the appraisal clause. We pull the carrier's claim file and scope. We help develop the documentation supporting the matching argument — manufacturer letters, distributor reports, contractor statements, side-by-side photos.
From there we tell you which discontinued-shingle scenario your situation fits, what 806 KAR 12:095 supports on those facts, what scope expansion is reasonably defensible, and whether the carrier's conduct may also support a Wittmer bad-faith argument with its 12% interest, fee-shifting, and potential punitive framework. The regulatory argument runs through the policy contract first; the bad-faith analysis layers on top when conduct supports it.
Our KY residential and commercial property damage work is generally on contingency — we only get paid from the recovery, not your pocket. Past results in other cases don't guarantee outcomes in any new matter, and every claim turns on its own facts.
