One of the most frustrating aspects of being involved in a car accident is dealing with the repairs to your car — whether it is finding a credible repair facility, demanding a fair estimate from the other driver’s insurance company, or obtaining (and getting reimbursed for) a rental car.
Further, there is the frustration, especially with owners of newer cars, that although they will get their car repaired, the car will still suffer from residual depreciation for having been in an accident. (fostering companies like Carfax). The typical response from insurance companies, however, is that once they pay for repairs they do not owe you any thing else — and many uninformed attorneys are satisfied with that answer.
However, the Nevada Jury Instructions specifically provide that in addition to the cost of repairs, the other driver (or their insurance company) is liable for the residual loss in value resulting from the accident, notwithstanding the repairs. Nev. J.I. 10.09 (1988)(“Personal Property Damage; Contention of Resdiual Depreciation”) permits provides, in part:
If repairs have been made by the property cannot be completely repaired, the measure of damages is the difference in the fair market value of the property immediately before the accident and its fair market value after the repairs have been made, plus the reasonable cost of making the repairs.
This instruction is based on the Baji Instruction 14.20. Utah employs a similar instruction. Model Utah Jury Instruction (Muji 15.122) (“Damage to personal property. Economic damage”) provides, in part:
If you find that the repairs do not restore the item to the same value as before the damage, you may award the difference between its fair market value before the harm and its fair market value after the repairs have been made, plus the reasonable cost of making the repairs. The total amount awarded must not exceed the [item of personal property]’s fair market value before the harm occurred.
The recent iteration of the Nevada Pattern Jury Instructions (2011) does not contain any instructions governing property damages. To be sure, there is no contradictory instruction, so it appears the law espoused in Nev. J.I. 10.09 remains valid. Unfortunately, there is no Nevada case law on exactly on point. However, the instruction makes sense — if the notion of damages is to make you “whole,” and your car has lost value in spite of repairs, you have a right to be compensated.
On a side note, we have successfully argued that our clients have a right to be compensated for the “loss of use” of their car, regardless of whether they obtain a rental. Dugan v. Gotsopoulos, 22 P.3d 205, 207-208, 117 Nev. 285, 289 (2001).
At Yan Kenyon we will help you deal with your insurance company to make sure you get your car repaired, repaired right, and get any additional compensation you are entitled to. Further, if we handle your personal injury matter — we take no fee in helping with your car repairs or rental car issues.
-jay
Jay Kenyon is a founding partner of Yan Kenyon and devotes his practice 100% to personal injury claims and litigation.
