WRECK CHECK CAR SCAN CENTERS LLC

Court Cases That Support DV's

In a 1922 case before the Supreme Court of Washington State, Madden vs. Nippon Auto Company, the judge ruled as follows, 

"In the case of an automobile, many injuries are of such a nature that they can be made whole by repairs. In more serious injuries, other elements enter into the question when the cost of repair and the loss of use will not measure the total amount of the loss, and such for example, the element which witnesses before mentioned cited, the loss of sale value arising from the mere fact of injury."

A 1923 case from New Jersey, Hintz vs. Roberts, later reaffirmed in the 1946 case of Parisi vs. Freidman, also supports the payment of diminished value by finding, "the cost of repair and depreciated value of the vehicle is an appropriate measure of the damages so long as the sum does not exceed the decline in market value (the value before and after the accident without repairs)"

In a similar case before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in 1931, Schrenk vs. Standard Accident Insurance Company, the court also found in favor of diminished value ruling that, "One article of the policy provided that the policy should cover against actual loss or damage to an automobiles described in declarations. If the insured is entitled to his actual loss and damage then depreciation (diminished value) is properly included."  In the 1929 case of Welter v Schell (252 Ill. App. 586) the court ruled that; "Automobiles - depreciation in value as an element of damage. The owner is entitled to recover the amount which an automobile, damaged in a collision, has depreciated in value AFTER it has been repaired.

" Another early case from 1928, Borgmier v Wood (252 Ill. App. 194) echoes the same conclusion;

"The measure of damages where an automobile can be reasonably repaired is the cost of such repairs, and if the automobile, after it is repaired, is not in as good condition as it were prior to the time of it being damaged, the plaintiff may show the difference in value before the injury and after the repairs were made." In the 1964 case of Lucas v Bowman Dairy (50 Ill App. 2nd> 413), the court used the wording from the Illinois restatement of torts as follows;

"Damages- Ordinarily, measure of damages to personality is reasonable cost of making repairs, but, if property after repair is worth less than before it was damaged, measure would be the 0difference in market value before and after, in addition to reasonable cost of repairs."

This is not a select few cases, there are dozens of cases that influenced the courts later decisions in favor of diminished value that do not appear in the computer law digests. Most digests go back into the nineteen thirties at the latest, some only go back as far as the fifties. When most people do research on this issue, the case law foundation of diminished value appears farther back then one would think. Once these cases set the national precedent, there was no real reason to continue additional court cases. You will also not find any case in Illinois where an insurer had been sued for diminished value by an insured, and a court ruled against the insured and for the insurer. In fact there is a distinct absence of this type of case. Most insurers will pay before a diminished value case goes to court because they know it is owed, and do not want to set recent precedent. Insurance companies have always paid diminished value to those few intelligent enough to understand the concept, and ask for it. This practice of non-information continues to this day