Clark, Perdue & List's Blog

Handling the claim for damage to your motor vehicle after a wreck is frequently the most frustrating part of being in an accident.

The law in Ohio is pretty clear in most respects, and it is largely a matter of common sense. When your vehicle has been damaged in an accident, you are entitled to have it repaired and restored to its pre-accident condition unless the cost of repairs is more that the market value of the vehicle. The market value is essentially what an ordinary consumer would have paid for your vehicle, in an arms length transaction, immediately before it was damaged. For vehicles less than 10 years old, market value can be calculated by reference to one of several written guides that are professionally prepared and updated, and available to anyone at bookstores and on the Internet.

If the cost of repairing your motor vehicle exceeds the pre-accident market value, then you are not entitled to have the vehicle repaired; rather, you are entitled only to be paid the fair market value of the vehicle.

The problem for consumers arises when repairs to a vehicle fail to restore it to its pre-accident market value. For example, if the frame has been bent, some argue, and many prospective buyers believe, the vehicle can never be returned completely to its pre-accident condition. Then, more generally, many people believe that any vehicle that has been seriously damaged in a high-impact collision can never be restored to its pre-accident market value. This is sometimes referred to as “post-repair depreciation” or “residual diminution in value.”

In a case that is very good for the general motoring public (people who own and drive motor vehicles), the Franklin County Court of Appeals recently held that “residual diminution in value” is a legally recognizable element of damages after a motor vehicle crash. The case is Rakich v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 2007 Ohio 3739; 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3405, decided July 24, 2007. The court held as follows:

“Under the general principle that an injured party shall have sufficient compensation for the injuries to make him whole, we find that, when a plaintiff proves that the value of his automobile after repair is less than the pre-injury value of the automobile, the plaintiff may recover the residual diminution in value in addition to the cost of repair, provided that the plaintiff may not recover damages in excess of the difference between the market value of the automobile immediately before and immediately after the injury.”

This is a good case for consumers in Ohio and eliminates a loophole in Ohio's law of property damage.