Appellate Court Finds Property Damage Estimate Came Too Late

By Don R. Sampen, published, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, August 19, 2025

The 1st District Appellate Court recently held that an apartment building owner was not entitled to coverage for all claimed rehab costs or lost rents after the property was vandalized because the building was under a court order to close and certain damage estimates came too late.

The case is Bunjo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2025 IL App (1st) 241010 (June 23). The insured, Seviiri Bunjo, was represented by Abigail Schmitz Law LLC of Chicago. O’Hagan Meyer LLC of Chicago represented State Farm.

Bunjo owned a three-unit apartment building in Chicago where he lived and rented out two units. In April 2019, the city ordered him to correct conditions in the property resulting in tenants being without water and electric service, and it later issued citations to correct code violations and to replace work performed without permits. About a month later the city ordered him to vacate the property.

Later that May, vandals damaged the property and stole heating and air-conditioning appliances. At that point Bunjo submitted a claim to his property insurer, State Farm, and it sent a claims adjuster to investigate. At about the same time, Bunjo’s general contractor began gutting the property.

State Farm’s adjuster provided an estimate to Bunjo’s attorney and mailed a check to Bunjo for about $33,000, followed by another check for about $4,100 after negotiations with a public adjuster.

Bunjo disagreed with the payment and sent State Farm a quote from his general contractor for about $98,000. That quote, however, was based on the contractor’s estimate for a “gut rehab” of the property. Bunjo also hired a public adjuster, but by that time there was nothing much left in the building and the adjuster had to make estimates based on photos and discussions with the State Farm adjuster. The public adjuster’s discussion with State Farm led to the second State Farm payment.

In 2020, Bunjo filed the instant lawsuit against State Farm seeking recovery of about $122,000. That amount consisted of claimed vandalism property damage, lost rents, and rent Bunjo had to pay elsewhere during the repairs, less the amount already paid by State Farm.

Following discovery, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment based on the amount it already had paid. That motion was granted and Bunjo took this appeal.

Analysis

In an opinion by Justice Terrence J. Lavin, the 1st District affirmed. Bunjo’s main argument was the existence of fact issues, but Lavin found there were not any. Lavin observed that Bunjo had failed to present evidence that he was entitled to greater damages than State Farm already paid or that State Farm’s estimate was incorrect.

Moreover, neither the general contractor’s nor the public adjuster’s estimates were based on the damages arising from the vandalism. The general contractor based his estimate on a full gut rehab job, and the public adjuster did not see the property until after the gut rehab.

As for lost rents, Lavin wrote the State Farm policy contained an express exclusion stating that State Farm would not pay “any loss that would not have occurred in the absence of [an] Ordinance or law … regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure….” Consistent with this exclusion, State Farm was not obligated to pay any lost rent because the property was deemed uninhabitable by court order.

Bunjo further contended that the trial court had ignored his request for an appraisal or arbitration. But Lavin rejected that argument on the grounds that Bunjo had raised it only at the conclusion of his response to the summary judgment motion and without argument in the body of his response. He therefore had not sufficiently preserved the issue.

Accordingly, the court affirmed in favor of State Farm.

Key Point

If property damage estimates for insurance purposes are not made at or about the time the damage occurred and prior to significant alterations to the property, the estimates will likely lose validity as a basis for compensation.