Diminished value claims by state
By the Reclaim research team · Last updated · Legal review pending
Most states let a car owner claim diminished value from the at-fault driver when a repaired car is worth less than before the crash, but few let you claim it under your own policy. The deadline to file a lawsuit over car damage ranges from two to ten years, depending on the state.
The table below covers all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Case-law summaries come from a 50-state law-firm survey. Deadlines were checked against current statute text. Each row links its sources. State guides cover Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina in more depth.
What the columns mean
- Other driver at fault (third party): whether lost value after repair can be recovered on a claim against the at-fault driver. "Not settled" means the survey found no reported decision either way.
- Your own policy (first party): how courts have read standard auto policies. Your policy's exact wording controls.
- Deadline to file suit: the statute of limitations for a lawsuit over damage to a car. It is not a deadline to open an insurance claim.
| State | Other driver at fault | Your own policy | Deadline to file suit | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | Generally no (Pritchett v. State Farm, 2002). | 2 years | |
| Alaska | Not settled. No vehicle decision found. Courts follow general damages rules. | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 2 years | |
| Arizona | Yes. Repair cost plus proven lost value (Farmers Ins. v. R.B.L. Investment, 1983). | Generally no (Johnson v. State Farm, 1988). | 2 years | |
| Arkansas | Yes. Value before and after is the measure; repair cost is evidence of it (Daughhetee v. Shipley, 1984). | Value drop owed where repairs could not restore value (MFA Ins. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, 1977). | 3 years | |
| California | Yes. Jury instruction CACI 3903J adds lost value after repair. | Generally no after a proper repair (Ray v. Farmers, 1988). | 3 years | |
| Colorado | Yes. Colorado jury instruction 6:12 adds lost value after repair. | Possible under "like kind and quality" wording (Hyden v. Farmers, 2000). | 3 yearsMotor vehicle tort claims. | |
| Connecticut | Yes. Recoverable even after repair (Orlando v. Liburd, 2026; Littlejohn v. Elionsky, 1944). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 2 yearsFrom when the damage is sustained or discovered, with a 3-year outer limit. | |
| Delaware | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | No under "repair or replace" wording (O'Brien v. Progressive, 2001). | 2 years | |
| District of Columbia | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value, capped at the total drop (American Service Center v. Helton, 2005). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 3 years | |
| Florida | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value (McHale v. Farm Bureau, 1982; jury instruction 501.2(h)). | Generally no after a first-rate repair (Siegle v. Progressive, 2002). | 2 yearsNegligence claims arising after March 24, 2023. A separate 4-year period covers injury to personal property; confirm which applies. | |
| Georgia | Yes. Repair cost plus permanent impairment in value (Perma Ad Ideas v. Mayville, 1981). | Yes where the policy pays for "loss" (State Farm v. Mabry, 2001). | 4 years | |
| Hawaii | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 2 years | |
| Idaho | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 3 years | |
| Illinois | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value (Trailmobile v. Higgs, 1973). | Generally no (Sims v. Allstate, 2006). | 5 years | |
| Indiana | Yes. Repair cost plus residual lost value (Wiese-GMC v. Wells, 1993). | Generally no (Allgood v. Meridian, 2005). Uninsured motorist claims may differ (Dunn, 2005). | 2 years | |
| Iowa | Yes. With expert proof (Hawkeye Motors v. McDowell, 1995). | Policy wording controls. Check source. | 5 years | |
| Kansas | Yes. When repair does not restore value (Broadie v. Randall, 1923). | Yes when the insurer's repairs do not restore value (Venable v. Import Volkswagen, 1974). | 2 years | |
| Kentucky | Not settled. No vehicle decision found. For a home, stigma is recoverable within the drop in value (Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018). | Generally no (Tomes v. Nationwide, 1991). | 2 years | |
| Louisiana | Yes. Allowed by statute (La. R.S. 9:2800.17). | Generally no under "repair or replace" wording (Campbell v. Markel, 2001). | 2 yearsFor claims arising after July 1, 2024. Earlier claims had 1 year. | |
| Maine | Yes. Value before and after is the measure; repair cost is not conclusive (Collins v. Kelley, 1935). | No (Hall v. Acadia, 2002). | 6 years | |
| Maryland | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value, within the total drop (Fred Frederick Motors v. Krause, 1971). | Uninsured motorist property damage must cover it (Bulletin 24-8, 2024). Collision depends on wording. | 3 years | |
| Massachusetts | Yes. Recoverable (McGilloway v. Safety Ins., 2021). | Generally no (Division of Insurance advisory, 2002). | 3 years | |
| Michigan | Not settled. No decision found. The no-fault law also limits suits over vehicle damage. | Generally no (Driscoll v. State Farm, 2002). | 3 years | |
| Minnesota | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | An old decision allowed it (Ciresi, 1932). Policy wording controls. | 6 years | |
| Mississippi | Yes. Repair cost plus remaining lost value (Ishee v. Dukes Ford, 1980). | Older decisions allowed it (Potomac Ins. v. Wilkinson, 1952). | 3 years | |
| Missouri | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value after repair (Rook v. John F. Oliver Trucking, 1977). | Generally no after an adequate repair (Lupo v. Shelter, 2002). | 5 years | |
| Montana | Not settled. An open question (Hop v. Safeco, 2011). | Depends on policy wording (Eby v. Foremost, 1962). | 3 yearsA 2-year statute (27-2-207) is still on the books, but Ritland v. Rowe (1993) applied the 3-year period to negligent property damage. | |
| Nebraska | Limited. Value before and after only when repair cannot restore the car to as good condition (Chlopek v. Schmall, 1986). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 4 years | |
| Nevada | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | No decision found. Regulation speaks only to repair. | 3 years | |
| New Hampshire | Yes. Repair cost plus remaining lost value upheld where repairs did not restore the car (Copadis v. Haymond, 1946). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 3 years | |
| New Jersey | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value, within the total drop (Fanfarillo v. East End Motor, 1980). | No where the policy excludes it (Kieffer v. High Point, 2011). | 6 years | |
| New Mexico | Yes. Repair cost plus depreciation, or the drop in value, whichever is less (Hubbard, 1998). | Generally no (Davis v. Farmers, 2006). | 4 years | |
| New York | Limited. Allowed in some cases (Rosenfield v. Choberka, 1988; Franklin Corp. v. Prahler, 2011); not for resale loss alone after a full repair (Parkoff v. Stavsky, 2013). | Depends on policy wording. | 3 years | |
| North Carolina | Yes. Value before and after is the measure (Smith v. White, 2011). Liability policies must offer an appraisal (G.S. 20-279.21(d1)). | No decision found after a proper repair. The policy wording controls. | 3 years | |
| North Dakota | Limited. Statute presumes repair cost unless restoration is impracticable (N.D.C.C. 32-03-09.1). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 6 years | |
| Ohio | Yes. Repair cost plus residual lost value, capped at the total drop (Rakich v. Anthem, 2007). | Generally no (Nationwide v. Shah, 2004). | 2 years | |
| Oklahoma | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value after repair (Brennen v. Aston, 2003). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 2 years | |
| Oregon | Yes. Claimed as negligence damages (Powers v. Quigley, 2008); proof must be solid (EAM Advertising v. Helies, 1998). | Yes if repair cannot restore pre-loss physical condition (Gonzales v. Farmers, 2008). | 2 to 6 yearsSix years for injuring personal property (12.080(4)); a two-year period (12.110(1)) may be argued, so two years is the conservative date. | |
| Pennsylvania | Yes. Repair cost with allowance for lost value (Holt v. Pariser, 1947). | Generally no. | 2 years | |
| Rhode Island | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | Policy wording may be ambiguous (Cazabat, 2000). | 10 years | |
| South Carolina | Yes. Repair cost plus remaining lost value (Newman v. Brown, 1955). | No under "lesser of" wording (Schulmeyer v. State Farm, 2003). | 3 years | |
| South Dakota | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | No (Culhane v. Western Nat'l, 2005). | 6 years | |
| Tennessee | Not settled. Not settled (GEICO v. Bloodworth, 2007). | No (Black v. State Farm, 2002). | 3 years | |
| Texas | Yes. The insurance department says a liability insurer may be obligated to pay lost market value (Bulletin B-0027-00). | No after a complete repair (Am. Mfrs. Mut. v. Schaefer, 2003). Uninsured motorist coverage may differ. | 2 years | |
| Utah | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value after repair (Metcalf v. Mellen, 1920). | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 4 yearsMotor vehicle property damage (amended 2023). | |
| Vermont | Yes. Value before and after is the measure (Kinney v. Cloutier, 1965). | Yes unless the policy says otherwise (Bulletin 164, 2011). | 3 years | |
| Virginia | Yes. Repair cost plus lost value after repair (Averett v. Shircliff, 1977). | Generally no (Bickel v. Nationwide, 1965). | 5 years | |
| Washington | Yes. When repair cannot fully restore the car (Grothe v. Kushnivich, 2022). | Possible under "repair or replace" wording (Moeller v. Farmers, 2011). | 3 years | |
| West Virginia | Limited. Only with structural damage to a car of significant value (Ellis v. King, 1990). | No authority found. | 2 years | |
| Wisconsin | Yes. If repairs did not restore value (Hellenbrand v. Hilliard, 2004). | No (Wildin v. American Family, 2001). | 3 yearsMotor vehicle accidents. | |
| Wyoming | Not settled. No reported decision found in the survey. | No decision found. The policy wording controls. | 4 years |
Insurance department complaint pages are linked on each state guide. For other states, your state insurance department's website lists how to file a complaint.
Notes on states without their own guide
These states do not have a separate guide yet. Each note adds the leading authority and the filing deadline behind its row in the table.
Alaska
No Alaska decision on lost value after a car repair was found. In Willett v. State (1992), a criminal mischief case, the Alaska Supreme Court acknowledged the Restatement rule that allows both repair cost and the remaining drop in value when repairs do not restore the original value. A lawsuit for injury to personal property must be filed within two years (Alaska Stat. 09.10.070).
Hawaii
No Hawaii decision on lost value after a car repair was found, so general damages rules apply. Hawaii courts have used the drop in value to measure other kinds of property loss. A lawsuit for damage to personal property must be filed within two years (Haw. Rev. Stat. 657-7).
Iowa
Iowa allows lost value after repair against the at-fault driver when it is supported by expert testimony and the evidence, and the amount is for the judge or jury (Hawkeye Motors v. McDowell, Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Iowa gives five years to sue for injuries to property (Iowa Code 614.1(4)).
Kentucky
No modern Kentucky appellate decision on lost value after a car repair was found. For real property, the Kentucky Supreme Court held in Muncie v. Wiesemann (2018) that stigma damages can be recovered on top of repair cost, capped at the drop in market value. Under your own policy, Tomes v. Nationwide (1991) held the insurer must restore the car's physical condition, not its value. Kentucky gives two years for injury to personal property (Ky. Rev. Stat. 413.125).
Maine
Against the at-fault driver, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court applied the long-established rule that the owner recovers the difference in the car's value before and after the accident, and upheld an award above the repair cost (Collins v. Kelley, 1935). Under an owner's own policy, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held in Hall v. Acadia Insurance (2002) that lost value is not covered because it is not a loss that can be repaired. Maine's general period for civil actions is six years (14 M.R.S. 752).
Minnesota
No Minnesota decision on lost value after repair in a claim against the at-fault driver was found. Under an owner's own policy, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in Ciresi v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance (1932) that the insurer had to pay for loss of value that repair did not make up, though policy wording has changed since. Minnesota gives six years for injury to property (Minn. Stat. 541.05).
Montana
In Hop v. Safeco (2011), the Montana Supreme Court treated recovery of lost value after repair as an open question and did not decide it. An older decision, Eby v. Foremost (1962), read a replacement promise in a policy to mean restoration with no loss in value after repair. Montana courts have applied a three-year period to negligent property damage (Mont. Code 27-2-204; Ritland v. Rowe, 1993).
Nebraska
Under Chlopek v. Schmall (1986), when a car can be repaired to as good condition as before, the Nebraska Supreme Court measures damages by repair cost plus loss of use; when repair cannot do that, the measure is the difference in market value immediately before and after the accident. Nebraska gives four years for injury to personal property (Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-207).
New Hampshire
In Copadis v. Haymond (1946), as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Couture v. Marquis (1966), a verdict covering both repairs that did not restore the car and its remaining drop in value was held not excessive. No decision on lost value under an owner's own policy was found. New Hampshire's general period for personal actions is three years (N.H. Rev. Stat. 508:4).
New Mexico
In Hubbard v. Albuquerque Truck Center (1998), the New Mexico Court of Appeals measured property damage as repair cost plus depreciation, or the drop in market value, whichever is less. Under an owner's own policy, Davis v. Farmers (2006) declined to require lost value. New Mexico gives four years for injury to property (N.M. Stat. 37-1-4).
North Dakota
North Dakota's damages statute presumes repair cost plus loss of use for injured property, and switches to the before-and-after market value when restoration within a reasonable time is impossible or impracticable (N.D. Cent. Code 32-03-09.1). North Dakota gives six years for injury to property (N.D. Cent. Code 28-01-16).
Rhode Island
No Rhode Island decision on lost value against the at-fault driver was found. Under an owner's own policy, a Rhode Island trial court found "repair or replace with other of like kind and quality" wording ambiguous on lost value and left the question to a jury (Cazabat v. Metropolitan, 2000). Rhode Island gives ten years for civil actions not otherwise limited (R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-13(a)).
South Dakota
No South Dakota decision on lost value against the at-fault driver was found. Under an owner's own policy, the South Dakota Supreme Court applied the policy's wording and declined lost value after a full repair (Culhane v. Western National, 2005). South Dakota gives six years for injury to property (S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-13).
Vermont
Vermont measures car damage by the value immediately before and after the accident, with repair costs admissible as evidence (Kinney v. Cloutier, 1965). The Department of Financial Regulation's Bulletin 164 (2011), as summarized in the survey, says that absent specific policy language a policy must pay diminished value and insurers must be able to explain a fair process for adjusting it. Vermont gives three years (12 V.S.A. 512).
West Virginia
In Ellis v. King (1990), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals allowed lost market value on top of repair cost for a structurally damaged car of significant value that still lost value after repair, with the total capped at the car's value before the damage. West Virginia gives two years (W. Va. Code 55-2-12).
Before you file
Lost value is easiest to show once repairs are finished. Records that tend to matter are the final repair invoice, photos, any structural or frame work on the estimate, the vehicle history report entry, and written market evidence for the same car with and without an accident history.
Questions
- Which states allow diminished value claims?
- On a claim against the at-fault driver, case law or statute allows lost value after repair in 33 of the 51 jurisdictions in this table. Several more allow it only in narrow cases, and the rest have no reported decision either way.
- Can I claim diminished value from my own insurance?
- Usually not. Most courts read standard "repair or replace" policy wording to cover the repair only. Georgia is the best-known exception, under State Farm v. Mabry (2001). A few states allow it depending on the policy's exact wording.
- How long do I have to file a diminished value claim?
- The deadline to file a lawsuit over car damage is set by each state's statute of limitations. In this table it ranges from two years to ten years. Insurance claims are usually opened much sooner, but the statute sets the outside limit for filing suit.
- Is this table legal advice?
- No. It is general information with sources. Laws and court decisions change, and the right answer for a claim depends on its facts and dates. A licensed attorney in your state can confirm how the rules apply.
Check your diminished value for free
If you kept the car after repairs and the other driver's insurer is handling the claim, the free check gives you an objective figure. It is not a recovery target.
- Who was at fault, and whether the repairs are finished.
- Roughly what the car was worth and what the repairs cost.
- Then your name and number, and the repair invoice.