Missouri homeowners who filed structural damage claims with State Farm after June 5, 2012 often received an “actual cash value” (ACV) check—meant to reflect the repair cost minus depreciation. The dispute centered on State Farm’s practice of subtracting “non-material depreciation” (depreciation applied to items like labor or other costs that don’t physically wear out like shingles or siding) and sometimes depreciation tied to general contractor overhead and profit. According to the case materials, these deductions could reduce what policyholders received upfront, and in some instances could even push the ACV amount below the policy deductible, resulting in no payment at all. The lawsuit, Pregon v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (St. Louis County Circuit Court), was filed on the theory that these depreciation practices violated Missouri policyholders’ rights under their structural damage coverage by understating ACV payments. Without admitting wrongdoing, State Farm agreed to a settlement covering a class period running from June 5, 2012 to about October 2017, with payments generally pegged to a percentage of the disputed deductions plus 8.9% simple interest. Its significance is practical as well as legal: it addresses how insurers calculate ACV in real-world claims handling, including situations where policyholders never saw an ACV check because contested depreciation allegedly erased the payout. More broadly, the case fits into a national wave of litigation over whether insurers may depreciate labor and other “intangible” components when determining ACV—an issue that turns on policy language and state law, and that has produced mixed results across jurisdictions and carriers. In the insurance industry, ACV vs. replacement cost value (RCV) is a major pricing and claims framework: RCV policies often pay ACV first and the rest after repairs, while ACV calculations are expected to follow state contract-law rules and state insurance-department standards for fair claims practices. Settlements like this can pressure insurers to clarify depreciation methodologies, adjust claim software and estimating guidelines, and prompt regulators and courts to more closely scrutinize whether depreciation is being applied to things that can’t actually “wear out” in the way physical materials do.