Why handle DV in Florida?

Based on FLHSMV Traffic Crash Facts (2023):

• ~395,000 total codable crashes
• ~1,083 crashes per day on average
• ~3,162 fatal crashes / ~3,375 fatalities
• ~252,000 people injured

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~39,500 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$138M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$46M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$31M realized firm share.

Source: FLHSMV Traffic Crash Facts (2023). 2022 was similar at ~397,620 crashes.

Florida filing path

DV is typically a third-party negligence / property-damage claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. First-party collision coverage generally does not pay inherent DV after a quality repair.

Statute of limitations

2 years for negligence actions accruing on or after March 24, 2023 (HB 837) — Fla. Stat. § 95.11. Older losses may still run on the prior 4-year clock. Confirm accrual date early.

Supreme Court — first-party policy

Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002): after a first-rate repair restoring performance, appearance, and function, the collision insurer is not also required to pay inherent diminished value.

Appellate — third-party damages

McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982): repairs plus residual diminution can be recoverable when repairs do not restore pre-loss condition / value — supports documented third-party DV.

Fault note

Modified comparative negligence (51% bar) after HB 837 — Fla. Stat. § 768.81. Strong liability and appraisal packages matter more than ever.

Why handle DV in Georgia?

Based on Georgia Traffic Safety Facts (2023):

• ~373,000 total crashes
• ~1,615 traffic fatalities (−10% vs 2022)
• ~6,872 serious-injury crashes
• ~268,000 property-damage-only crashes

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~37,300 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$131M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$44M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$30M realized firm share.

Source: Georgia Traffic Safety Facts — Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes (2023) (GOHS / Numetric / FARS).

Georgia filing path

Georgia is uniquely strong: DV is recognized on first-party physical-damage claims and as a third-party tort recovery against the at-fault carrier.

Statute of limitations

4 years for injury to personal property — O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31 (from date of loss). Related personal-injury claims still run on a shorter 2-year clock.

Supreme Court — first-party duty

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 274 Ga. 498, 556 S.E.2d 114 (2001): insurers must assess and pay diminution in value as an element of covered “loss,” even after repairs restore appearance and function — the landmark U.S. DV case.

Appellate — diminution damages

Perma Ad Ideas of Am., Inc. v. Mayville, 158 Ga. App. 707, 282 S.E.2d 128 (1981): Georgia appellate recognition of diminution in value as a damages measure for vehicle property damage.

Bad-faith leverage

O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 — potential bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when an insurer refuses in bad faith to pay a covered demand within the statutory window.

Why handle DV in Illinois?

Based on Illinois Crash Facts (2023):

• ~299,100 total crashes statewide
• ~1,240 traffic fatalities / ~87,600 injuries
• ~20.6% of crashes involved injury
• Chicago metro concentrates claim volume

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~29,900 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$105M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$35M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$24M realized firm share.

Source: IDOT Illinois Crash Facts (2023).

Illinois filing path

Illinois is a favorable third-party DV market — claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. First-party collision usually excludes inherent DV after repair. If the tortfeasor is uninsured, practitioners often look to UMPD (policy language controls).

Statute of limitations

5 years for property damage — 735 ILCS 5/13-205. One of the longer PD windows nationally.

Appellate measure — repair + residual DV + LOU

Fairchild v. Keene, 416 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. App. 1981): recoverable items can include reasonable repair cost (within pre-repair diminution), post-repair diminution, and loss of use for the reasonable repair period.

Practice note

Document Illinois-market comps for the post-repair delta. Carriers may lean on simplified formulas (e.g. 17c) — market evidence beats formula math. Small-claims ceiling is commonly cited at $10,000 for lower-dollar disputes.

Fault

Modified comparative negligence — recovery generally if 50% or less at fault.

Why handle DV in California?

Based on recent CHP / OTS / SWITRS reporting:

• ~160,000+ injury and fatal crashes annually (SWITRS summaries)
• ~4,000+ traffic fatalities in recent full years (OTS / NHTSA)
• Tens of thousands of serious injuries statewide
• Los Angeles and other metros concentrate claim volume

Assuming only 10% of those injury/fatal crashes are DV-eligible: ~16,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$56M total market on that slice alone; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$19M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$13M realized firm share (PDO collisions add more runway).

Sources: UC Berkeley TIMS / SWITRS; California Office of Traffic Safety; CHP CCRS open data.

California filing path

Practical recovery is almost always third-party against the at-fault liability carrier. First-party collision policies commonly exclude inherent DV, and courts enforce those limits.

Statute of limitations

3 years for injury to personal property — Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c). Related personal-injury claims run 2 years under § 335.1.

Jury instruction — residual DV

CACI No. 3903J (Damage to Personal Property): if the vehicle can be repaired but remains worth less after repairs, damages may include repair cost plus the post-repair value drop (capped at pre-loss value) — the working third-party DV framework.

Court of Appeal — first-party exclusion

Baldwin v. AAA N. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exch., 1 Cal. App. 5th 545 (2016); see also Ray v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 200 Cal. App. 3d 1411 (1988): collision insurers may limit recovery to repair / replace and decline inherent DV under clear policy language.

Practice note

Carry the burden with local comps and a clear post-repair market delta. Some federal cases construe “property damage” narrowly for pure stigma; documented residual loss after repair is the stronger package.

Why handle DV in Missouri?

Based on Missouri State Highway Patrol crash statistics (2023):

• ~136,800 total crashes statewide
• ~991 traffic fatalities / ~905 fatal crashes
• ~73.9% of reported crashes were property-damage-only
• ~1% decrease in total crashes vs 2022 (still a large volume)

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~13,700 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$48M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$16M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$11M realized firm share.

Source: Missouri State Highway Patrol — Traffic Crashes (2023).

Missouri filing path

DV is typically a third-party property-damage claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. Missouri is a fault state; courts have long treated diminution after repair as part of the tort measure when the market still shows a drop.

Statute of limitations

5 years from the date of loss for personal property injury — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120.

Third-party diminution

Rook v. John F. Oliver Trucking Co., 566 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. App. 1977): measure from pre-collision fair market value to value after repairs when repairs are made — the working third-party DV frame.

First-party policy limits

Lupo v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. App. 2002); see also Missouri DOI guidance citing the same line — standard first-party collision coverage generally need not pay inherent DV after an adequate repair. Practical takeaway: pursue the at-fault carrier.

Fault

Pure comparative fault — partial fault reduces recovery; it does not automatically bar the PD/DV claim.

Why handle DV in Colorado?

Based on CDOT / CDPHE crash reporting:

• ~122,500 total crashes at the 2018 peak (CDOT Problem ID)
• ~95,000–103,000 crashes/year in the recent post-2020 rebound
• ~764 motor-vehicle fatalities in 2022
• ~3,674 serious (incapacitating) injuries in 2022

Using ~100,000 crashes/year and assuming only 10% are DV-eligible: ~10,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$35M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$12M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$8M realized firm share.

Sources: CDOT Problem Identification Report (2022 ed.; Table 1 crash totals through 2020); CDOT Problem Identification Executive Summary (2024 / 2022 fatality & serious-injury data); CDOT Crash Data Dashboard for current statewide totals.

Colorado filing path

DV is a third-party property-damage recovery against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. First-party collision policies generally are not required to pay inherent DV.

Statute of limitations

3 years for motor-vehicle property-damage torts — C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(n)(I) (from date of loss). Do not confuse with the general 2-year tort SOL.

Supreme Court — diminution framework

Trujillo v. Wilson, 117 Colo. 430, 189 P.2d 147 (1948): measure of damage includes the difference in value immediately before and after the injury, plus reasonable restoration costs.

Supreme Court — depreciation evidence

Larson v. Long, 74 Colo. 152 (1923): depreciation / diminution evidence is admissible as an element of automobile damages.

First-party limit

Lovell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 466 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 2006) (applying Colorado law): Colorado’s No-Fault framework does not force collision coverage to pay inherent DV when excluded — pursue the at-fault carrier.

Why handle DV in Tennessee?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~83,400 police-reported crashes
• ~1,300+ traffic fatalities in recent full-year reporting
• Nashville / Memphis concentrate claim volume
• Third-party DV path with comps — first-party generally out

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~8,300 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$29M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$9.7M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$6.6M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Tennessee filing path

Tennessee recognizes third-party diminished value when supported by credible market evidence — pursue the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. First-party inherent DV after a quality repair is generally out under typical policy language.

Statute of limitations

3 years for injury to property — Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105.

Third-party path

No standalone DV statute — recovery rides on property-damage tort principles with appraisal / comps proof. Practitioners package inherent DV after repair against the at-fault carrier (not a Georgia-style first-party Mabry pitch).

First-party policy

Black v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 101 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. App. 2002): unambiguous repair language can limit the insured to repairs — don’t pitch first-party inherent DV.

Fault

Modified comparative fault (50% bar) — recovery generally if less than 50% at fault.

Why handle DV in Oklahoma?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~45,800 police-reported crashes
• ~700+ traffic fatalities in recent full-year reporting
• Oklahoma City metro concentrates claim volume
• Clear supreme-court support for post-repair diminution

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~4,600 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$16M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$5.3M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$3.6M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Oklahoma filing path

DV is a strong third-party property-damage claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. First-party collision policies commonly exclude inherent DV; UM/UIM generally does not backstop DV — pursue the at-fault carrier.

Statute of limitations

2 years for injury to personal property — 12 O.S. § 95.

Supreme Court — post-repair DV

Brennen v. Aston, 2003 OK 91, 84 P.3d 99: damages are not limited to repair cost where repairs fail to restore pre-loss condition; repair cost plus diminution in value is the ordinary measure.

Jury instruction — OUJI 4.14

Pattern instruction allows reasonable repair cost plus depreciation (pre-injury market value minus value after repairs) — and separately the reasonable cost of renting a similar vehicle during the repair period.

Fee-shifting lever

Prevailing party in a personal-property damage suit may recover attorney fees under 12 O.S. § 940 — case-specific; don’t promise fees on a sales call.

Fault

Modified comparative negligence — recovery generally if 50% or less at fault.

Why handle DV in Arkansas?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~39,100 police-reported crashes
• ~596 traffic fatalities
• Little Rock / Northwest Arkansas concentrate volume
• Clear supreme-court measure for residual market loss

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~3,900 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$14M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$4.6M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$3.1M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Arkansas filing path

DV is widely recognized as a third-party property-damage claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. First-party collision is generally policy-limited (repair / condition, not market stigma) — pursue the tortfeasor’s carrier; UMPD / UIM may matter when the at-fault party is uninsured or underinsured (policy language controls).

Statute of limitations

3 years from date of loss — Ark. Code § 16-56-105. Coordinate with any companion PI claim (don’t split a single cause of action).

Supreme Court — diminution measure

MFA Ins. Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Hope, 545 S.W.2d 70 (Ark. 1977); see also Daughhetee v. Shipley, 669 S.W.2d 886 (Ark. 1984): if repairs do not substantially restore former condition and value, measure is difference in FMV before vs after accident and repairs — residual post-repair loss is recoverable.

Practice note

Arkansas salvage / total-loss threshold is commonly cited at 70% of average retail (Ark. Code § 27-14-2301) — more vehicles tip into ACV fights. Small-claims ceiling is commonly cited at $5,000.

Fault

Modified comparative fault — recovery generally barred at 50% or more fault.

Why handle DV in Kansas?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~31,800 police-reported crashes
• ~350 traffic fatalities in recent full-year reporting
• Overland Park / KC metro concentrates claim volume
• Strong documentation culture for market-comparison appraisals

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~3,200 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$11M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$3.7M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.5M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Kansas filing path

DV is typically a third-party property-damage claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier. Kansas no-fault concepts mainly affect bodily injury — PD/DV still runs against the tortfeasor’s property-damage coverage.

Statute of limitations

2 years from the date of the accident — K.S.A. § 60-513. Timely appraisal and demand matter.

Supreme Court — diminution measure

Broadie v. Randall, 114 Kan. 92, 216 P. 1103 (1923): when repairs do not restore original condition/value, the difference in market value (and in some settings repair cost plus residual diminution) is a fair measure — the classic Kansas DV authority.

Evidence / negotiation

Independent market-comparison appraisals (comps with/without accident history) routinely outperform carrier 17c-style formulas in negotiation — document local listings and history reports.

Fault

Modified comparative fault — recovery generally barred at 50% or more fault.

Why handle DV in North Carolina?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~122,300 police-reported crashes
• Research Triangle / Charlotte concentrate claim volume
• Statutory first-party DV appraisal procedure when estimates diverge

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~12,200 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$43M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$14M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$10M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

North Carolina filing path

North Carolina is a strong DV market on both the first-party collision and third-party tort paths. Market-comparison appraisals (and the statutory umpire process when the carrier and policyholder diverge) beat 17c-style formulas.

Statute of limitations

3 years for injury to personal property — N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52.

First-party DV procedure

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(d)(1): if the insurer’s and policyholder’s diminished-value estimates differ by more than $2,000 or 25% of FMV, each side names an independent appraiser; a third-party umpire binds the parties.

Third-party measure

DeLaney v. Henderson-Gilmer Co., 135 S.E. 791 (N.C. 1926); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. P. & F. Motor Express, 18 S.E.2d 116 (1942) — difference in market value immediately before and after injury; repair cost and post-repair value are admissible.

Repair-to-former-condition

Pierce v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co., 83 S.E.2d 493 (N.C. 1954) — when the insurer elects to repair, it is bound to restore the vehicle to its former condition.

Why handle DV in New York?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~120,100 police-reported crashes
• NYC / downstate volume plus upstate PD dockets
• Best facts: newer, unique, or appreciating vehicles with comps

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~12,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$42M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$14M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$9.5M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

New York filing path

Pursue third-party residual DV with market evidence. First-party recovery is policy-specific (classic theft/direct-loss language is not a general collision rule). Residual DV is strongest on unique, rare, or nearly new vehicles.

Statute of limitations

3 years for injury to property — N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214.

Third-party residual DV

Miller v. Sanchez, 6 Misc. 3d 479, 789 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2004); Rosenfield v. Choberka, 529 N.Y.S.2d 455 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988); Franklin Corp. v. Prahler, 932 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) — repair cost plus residual diminution when repairs do not restore pre-accident value.

First-party

Edwards v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., 197 N.Y.S. 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922) is policy-language specific (theft / direct loss) — do not treat it as a blanket collision DV mandate.

Why handle DV in Ohio?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~113,200 police-reported crashes
• Cleveland / Columbus / Cincinnati metros
• Document post-repair FMV vs. pre-loss FMV

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~11,300 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$39.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$13M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$9.0M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Ohio filing path

Typical path is third-party residual DV on top of repair cost, capped at the pre-/post-injury market-value spread. First-party collision generally does not pay inherent DV after a quality repair.

Statute of limitations

2 years for injury to personal property — Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10.

Third-party residual DV

Rakich v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 875 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio App. 2007); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cheeks, 2014 WL 470874 (Ohio App. 2014) — repair plus residual diminution, not exceeding pre-/post-injury FMV difference.

First-party

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shah, 2004-Ohio-1291 (Ohio App. 5th Dist.); Kent v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. CA2001-04-100 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 2001) — no inherent DV under typical repair-or-replace collision language.

Why handle DV in Pennsylvania?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~100,100 police-reported crashes
• Philadelphia / Pittsburgh / Harrisburg corridors
• Restatement-style repair + residual + LOU package

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~10,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$35M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$12M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$7.9M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Pennsylvania filing path

Strong third-party package: cost of repair (or pre-/post-harm value) plus due allowance for remaining diminution and loss of use. First-party inherent DV after a quality repair is generally not the norm under collision policies.

Statute of limitations

2 years for injury to personal property — 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524.

Third-party measure

Holt v. Pariser, 54 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. 1947); Horton v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 94 Pa. Super. 553 (1928) — repair or restoration with allowance for remaining difference in value, plus loss of use.

First-party

Lobozzo v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc., 263 A.2d 432 (Pa. 1970) (realty context); collision carriers generally do not treat inherent DV as a reasonable expectation after repair.

Why handle DV in Virginia?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~87,700 police-reported crashes
• NOVA / Richmond / Hampton Roads volume
• Supreme Court support for repair-plus-depreciation

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~8,800 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$31M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$10M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$7.0M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Virginia filing path

File as a third-party PD claim: cost of repairs plus any remaining diminution after a competent repair. First-party collision generally does not add inherent DV or lost-warranty extras unless the policy says so.

Statute of limitations

5 years for injury to property — Va. Code § 8.01-243(B).

Third-party repair + depreciation

Averett v. Shircliff, 237 S.E.2d 92 (Va. 1977) — cost of repairs plus remaining diminution in market value after repair.

First-party

Bickel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 143 S.E.2d 903 (Va. 1965) — no extra first-party recovery (e.g., lost new-car warranty) beyond the policy.

Why handle DV in Indiana?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~85,200 police-reported crashes
• Indy metro plus regional PD volume
• UIM may follow the tortfeasor’s DV exposure

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~8,500 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$30M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$10M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$6.7M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Indiana filing path

Indiana is a favorable third-party residual-DV state (Restatement § 928). First-party collision is typically repair or ACV — not both. UIM paying on behalf of an uninsured tortfeasor can owe DV.

Statute of limitations

6 years for injury to personal property — Ind. Code § 34-11-2-7.

Third-party residual DV

Wiese-GMC, Inc. v. Wells, 626 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993); Dado v. Jeeninga, 743 N.E.2d 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); Shield Global Partners-G1, LLC v. Forster, 2020 WL 811645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) — repair plus inherent/residual diminution with post-repair FMV proof.

First-party / UIM

Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 2005) — collision is ACV or repair, not both. Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. 2005) — UIM standing in for the tortfeasor can owe DIV.

Why handle DV in New Jersey?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~78,000 police-reported crashes
• Dense Turnpike / Garden State volume
• Accident-history “scarlet letter” is a recognized third-party theory

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~7,800 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$27M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$9.1M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$6.2M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

New Jersey filing path

File third-party residual DV (repair plus depreciation, capped at pre-accident FMV). First-party collision commonly excludes inherent/stigma DV when the policy is unambiguous.

Statute of limitations

6 years for injury to personal property — N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-1.

Third-party measure

Fanfarillo v. East End Motor Co., 411 A.2d 1167 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1980) — reasonable repair cost plus depreciated value, not exceeding the pre-/post-injury FMV spread or pre-accident FMV. Fin. Servs. Vehicle Tr. v. Panter, 204 A.3d 303 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2019) — accident-history stigma as third-party diminution.

First-party

Kieffer v. High Point Ins. Co., 25 A.3d 1206 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2011) — unambiguous DV exclusion caps the carrier at returning the vehicle to substantially the same physical condition.

Why handle DV in Arizona?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~75,300 police-reported crashes
• Phoenix / Tucson metros
• Restatement § 928 residual-value language

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~7,500 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$26M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$8.8M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$6.0M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Arizona filing path

Arizona is a clean third-party residual-DV state. First-party collision does not pay inherent DV.

Statute of limitations

2 years for injury to personal property — Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542.

Third-party residual DV

Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. R.B.L. Inv. Co., 675 P.2d 1381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983); Oliver v. Henry, 260 P.3d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 928) — repair plus proven residual FMV loss, plus loss of use.

First-party

Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 754 P.2d 330 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988) — first-party measure is not pre-/post-collision market difference.

Why handle DV in Alabama?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~72,300 police-reported crashes
• Birmingham / Huntsville / Mobile volume
• LOU is clearer than residual DV — pair reports when downtime is real

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~7,200 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$25M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$8.4M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$5.7M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Alabama filing path

Treat Alabama as a cautious DV market: first-party collision does not pay post-repair inherent DV, and reported third-party residual-DV decisions are essentially absent. Still handle files with comps; set expectations. LOU is the stronger published theory.

Statute of limitations

6 years for injury to personal property — Ala. Code § 6-2-34.

First-party

Pritchett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 834 So. 2d 785 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002); Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Tumlin, 2 So. 2d 435 (Ala. 1941) — repair-or-replace collision language is limited to repair/replacement cost.

Third-party residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Alabama decisions allowing residual diminution of a repaired vehicle in a third-party claim. Document comps; do not overpromise a published holding.

Why handle DV in Wisconsin?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~67,200 police-reported crashes
• Milwaukee / Madison / Fox Valley
• Post-repair residual value is a recognized third-party element

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~6,700 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$23.4M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$7.8M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$5.3M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Wisconsin filing path

File third-party residual DV when repairs did not restore pre-injury value. First-party collision that elects repair need not also pay inherent DV.

Statute of limitations

6 years for injury to property — Wis. Stat. § 893.52.

Third-party residual DV

Paulson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 649 N.W.2d 645 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002); Hellenbrand v. Hilliard, 687 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) — cost of repair plus loss-of-value-after-repair if the owner proves repairs did not restore pre-injury value.

First-party

Wildin v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 638 N.W.2d 87 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) — “repair” does not mean restore pre-loss market value.

Why handle DV in South Carolina?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~60,800 police-reported crashes
• Upstate / Midlands / coastal volume
• Repair plus remaining diminution is the ordinary third-party measure

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~6,100 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$21.4M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$7.1M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$4.8M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

South Carolina filing path

Pursue third-party DV as repair cost plus remaining diminution. First-party collision that limits coverage to the lesser of ACV or repair does not add inherent DV.

Statute of limitations

3 years for injury to personal property — S.C. Code § 15-3-530.

Third-party

Newman v. Brown, 90 S.E.2d 649 (S.C. 1955) — cost of repairs plus remaining diminution is the ordinary measure.

First-party

Schulmeyer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 579 S.E.2d 132 (S.C. 2003) — ACV-or-repair alternatives do not include an extra diminished-value obligation.

Why handle DV in Massachusetts?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~60,700 police-reported crashes
• Greater Boston volume
• Standard auto policy language controls third-party IDV

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~6,100 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$21.4M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$7.1M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$4.8M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Massachusetts filing path

Massachusetts is policy-language sensitive. Older standard Part 4 language has been read to allow third-party inherent DV with proof; later standard forms expressly exclude decreased value. First-party inherent DV is generally out. Read the liability policy before demand.

Statute of limitations

3 years — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Third-party depends on the form

McGilloway v. Safety Ins. Co., 174 N.E.3d 1191 (Mass. 2021) — 2008 standard Part 4 can require IDV with proof of amount. Merullo v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 17417717 (D. Mass. 2022) — 2016 standard form excluding decreased value / intangible loss bars third-party IDV.

First-party

Given v. Commerce Ins. Co., 440 Mass. 207 (2003); Division of Insurance position that the standard auto policy is not intended to cover inherent DV.

Why handle DV in Washington?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~59,800 police-reported crashes
• Seattle / Puget Sound plus Spokane
• Minority first-party “like kind and quality” DV holding

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~6,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$21M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$7.0M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$4.8M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Washington filing path

Washington is unusually friendly on first-party inherent DV when the policy promises repair/replace of like kind and quality without a clear DV exclusion. Third-party residual DV is also recognized when a repaired car cannot be fully restored.

Statute of limitations

3 years — RCW 4.16.080.

First-party

Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 267 P.3d 998 (Wash. 2011) — “like kind and quality” repair/replace language encompasses diminished-value loss unless unambiguously excluded.

Third-party

Grothe v. Kushnivich, 521 P.3d 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022) — owner may recover diminution if a repaired car cannot be fully restored to pre-loss condition (not a total loss).

Why handle DV in Minnesota?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~58,000 police-reported crashes
• Twin Cities volume
• Third-party auto residual DV is thinly decided — comps still matter

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~5,800 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$20M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$6.8M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$4.6M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Minnesota filing path

First-party collision has older authority requiring compensation for depreciation not cured by repair. Reported third-party auto residual-DV decisions are scarce — pursue with comps using the ordinary tort measure, and do not overclaim a modern supreme-court holding.

Statute of limitations

6 years — Minn. Stat. § 541.05.

First-party

Ciresi v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 244 N.W. 688 (Minn. 1932) — policy required compensation for depreciation not fully cured by repair.

Third-party

MWL survey: no modern reported decisions squarely allowing auto residual DV against a tortfeasor. Use market comps; confirm current authority before demand.

Why handle DV in Maryland?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~57,400 police-reported crashes
• Baltimore / DC-suburb volume
• Repair plus remaining diminution, capped at pre-repair spread

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~5,700 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$20M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$6.7M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$4.5M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Maryland filing path

Maryland is a favorable third-party residual-DV jurisdiction: repair cost plus remaining market diminution, provided the two together do not exceed the pre-repair diminution.

Statute of limitations

3 years — Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101.

Third-party residual DV

Fred Frederick Motors, Inc. v. Krause, 277 A.2d 464 (Md. 1971) — if post-repair FMV is still diminished, recover repair cost plus that remaining diminution, capped at pre-repair diminution.

Why handle DV in Louisiana?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~55,600 police-reported crashes
• New Orleans / Baton Rouge / Lafayette
• Statutory third-party DV (La. R.S. 9:2800.17)

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~5,600 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$19.6M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$6.5M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$4.4M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Louisiana filing path

Louisiana has an explicit third-party DV statute: if the owner proves that even a pre-loss-condition repair would leave lower FMV, that diminution is additional damages (capped at pre-loss FMV). First-party repair-or-replace collision generally does not pay inherent DV. Watch the 1-year delictual clock.

Statute of limitations

1 year delictual — La. Civ. Code art. 3492. File early.

Third-party statute

La. R.S. 9:2800.17 — additional damages equal to proven post-repair FMV loss, not exceeding pre-loss FMV; counts toward the total-loss threshold.

First-party

Campbell v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 822 So. 2d 617 (La. App. 2001); Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) — repair-or-replace collision language does not require post-repair DV.

Why handle DV in Kentucky?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~49,000 police-reported crashes
• Louisville / Lexington / Northern Kentucky
• Statutory LOU (KRS 304.39-115) plus residual-value stigma authority

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~4,900 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$17M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$5.7M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$3.9M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Kentucky filing path

First-party collision restores physical condition, not market value. Third-party vehicle damages can include the pre-/post-injury value difference, counting stigma.

Statute of limitations

2 years — KRS § 413.125.

Third-party / stigma

Muncie v. Wiesemann, 548 S.W.3d 877 (Ky. 2018); Conrad v. Shrout, 2018 WL 3814610 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018) — difference in value before injury and immediately after, including stigma.

First-party

Tomes v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 825 S.W.2d 284 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991); Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Judd, 400 S.W.2d 685 (Ky. 1966) — restore physical condition, not value.

Why handle DV in Mississippi?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~40,900 police-reported crashes
• Jackson / Gulf Coast / north-state volume
• Repair plus remaining diminution, with proof quality in view

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~4,100 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$14M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$4.8M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$3.3M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Mississippi filing path

Mississippi allows residual diminution after feasible repairs on both policy and tort measures. Owner testimony alone may be thin — bring an appraisal.

Statute of limitations

3 years — Miss. Code § 15-1-49.

Repair + remaining diminution

Potomac Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 57 So. 2d 158 (Miss. 1952); Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Newman, 124 So. 2d 686 (Miss. 1960); Ishee v. Dukes Ford Co., 380 So. 2d 760 (Miss. 1980) — repair (or remaining pre-tort diminution) but not exceeding total pre-tort diminution.

Proof

Thomas v. Global Boat Builders & Repairmen, Inc., 482 So. 2d 1112 (Miss. 1986) (owner testimony often insufficient); but see Regency Nissan, Inc. v. Jenkins, 678 So. 2d 95 (Miss. 1995) (owner may testify to value).

Why handle DV in Oregon?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~36,800 police-reported crashes
• Portland metro plus I-5 corridor
• Supreme Court “repair” includes pre-loss condition / remaining DV

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~3,700 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$13M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$4.3M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.9M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Oregon filing path

Oregon is a minority first-party state: if collision “repair” cannot restore pre-loss condition, remaining diminution is payable. Third-party residual DV is recognized in principle — prove it with comps.

Statute of limitations

6 years — ORS 12.080.

First-party repair = pre-loss condition

Gonzales v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Or., 196 P.3d 1 (Or. 2008); Dunmire Motor Co. v. Or. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 114 P.2d 1005 (Or. 1941).

Third-party

EAM Adver. Agency v. Helies, 954 P.2d 812 (Or. Ct. App. 1998) — diminished-value evidence can be accepted but must actually be presented.

Why handle DV in Utah?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~34,600 police-reported crashes
• Wasatch Front volume
• Repair plus post-repair depreciation is a long-standing tort measure

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~3,500 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$12M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$4.1M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.8M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Utah filing path

Utah tort measure allows reasonable repair cost plus remaining depreciation after repairs. First-party auto DV is not developed in reported decisions — pursue the at-fault carrier.

Statute of limitations

3 years — Utah Code § 78B-2-305.

Third-party

Metcalf v. Mellen, 192 P. 676 (Utah 1920) — difference in market value immediately before and after injury, including reasonable repair cost plus remaining depreciation after repairs.

First-party

No reported Utah decisions on first-party inherent auto DV — collision language controls.

Why handle DV in Iowa?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~33,300 police-reported crashes
• Des Moines / Cedar Rapids / Quad Cities
• Repair-plus-DV with expert proof; jury discretion on amount

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~3,300 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$11.6M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$3.9M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.6M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Iowa filing path

Post-repair diminished value may be recovered with expert support; amount is for the factfinder. Administrative DV-policy experiments were rescinded — rely on proof, not a bulletin.

Statute of limitations

5 years — Iowa Code § 614.1(4).

Post-repair DV

Hawkeye Motors, Inc. v. McDowell, 541 N.W.2d 914 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) — diminished value after repairs if supported by expert testimony; amount in the court’s/jury’s discretion.

Why handle DV in Connecticut?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~30,500 police-reported crashes
• I-95 / Hartford / New Haven corridor
• Repair plus residual diminution is a repeated trial-court holding

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~3,100 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$11M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$3.6M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.5M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Connecticut filing path

First-party auto DV is typically not covered (repair or ACV, sometimes an express DV exclusion). Third-party plaintiffs recover reasonable repair costs plus residual diminution.

Statute of limitations

2 years — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584.

Third-party residual DV

Littlejohn v. Elionsky, 36 A.2d 52 (Conn. 1944); Stults v. Palmer, 141 Conn. 709 (1954) — reasonable repair costs and any residual diminution in value.

First-party

Connecticut OLR 2007-R-0011 — typical personal-auto policies cover repair or ACV, not lost market value, and may exclude diminution.

Why handle DV in New Mexico?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~28,200 police-reported crashes
• Albuquerque / Santa Fe / Las Cruces
• Lesser of repair-plus-depreciation or market reduction

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~2,800 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$10M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$3.3M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.2M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

New Mexico filing path

First-party inherent DV is generally out. Third-party damages aim to make the owner whole: usually the lesser of repair-plus-depreciation or reduction in market value.

Statute of limitations

4 years — N.M. Stat. § 37-1-4.

Third-party

Hubbard v. Albuquerque Truck Ctr. Ltd., 958 P.2d 111 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) — full/just compensation; lesser of repair costs plus depreciation or reduction in market value.

First-party

Davis v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 142 P.3d 17 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) — majority trend disallowing diminished market value under the insured’s own policy.

Why handle DV in Nevada?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~27,800 police-reported crashes
• Las Vegas / Reno volume
• LOU is the developed theory; auto residual DV is unpublished

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~2,800 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$10M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$3.3M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$2.2M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Nevada filing path

When an insurer elects repair, NAC 686A.680 requires restoring pre-loss condition — not residual DV. No reported Nevada decisions on first- or third-party auto residual DV. Still handle files with comps; lead with LOU when downtime is documented.

Statute of limitations

3 years — Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190.

First-party repair standard

Nev. Admin. Code § 686A.680 — restore the damaged vehicle to its condition before the loss; no residual-DV payment mentioned.

Third-party residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Nevada decisions. Use comps; do not cite a local supreme-court DV holding that does not exist.

Why handle DV in Idaho?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~19,700 police-reported crashes
• Boise / Treasure Valley plus I-84 freight
• Repair measure expressly includes diminished value after repairs plus LOU

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~2,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$7.0M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$2.3M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$1.6M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Idaho filing path

Idaho’s personal-property damage measure (repair branch) includes reasonable repair cost, diminished value after repairs, and loss of use. Auto-specific residual-DV case law is thin — still the Restatement-style package.

Statute of limitations

3 years — Idaho Code § 5-218.

Repair vs. replacement package

Spreader Specialists, Inc. v. Monroc, Inc., 752 P.2d 617 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987) — replacement (pre-/post value plus LOU) or repair (reasonable repairs, post-repair diminished value, and LOU).

Why handle DV in West Virginia?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~16,000 police-reported crashes
• I-77 / I-79 / Charleston–Huntington corridor
• Structural-damage residual-value exception after repair

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,600 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$5.6M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.9M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$1.3M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

West Virginia filing path

West Virginia recognizes residual loss of value after structural damage even when the vehicle looks and operates substantially the same — with proof, and not exceeding pre-accident FMV. First-party collision DV is not authorized.

Statute of limitations

2 years — W. Va. Code § 55-2-12.

Third-party residual after structural repair

Ellis v. King, 400 S.E.2d 235 (W. Va. 1990); Brooks v. City of Huntington, 768 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2014) — cost of repair plus proven remaining diminution from structural damage, capped at pre-damage FMV.

First-party

No authority authorizing first-party collision DV (Insurance Commissioner letters should not be read to extend Ellis to first-party).

Why handle DV in Maine?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~14,900 police-reported crashes
• I-95 / southern Maine volume
• LOU has a statutory rental-cost path; residual DV is unpublished in tort

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,500 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$5.2M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.8M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$1.2M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Maine filing path

First-party collision does not cover inherent DV (“repair” does not restore uninsurable stigma). No reported third-party auto residual-DV holding — handle with comps and pair LOU when downtime is real.

Statute of limitations

6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752.

First-party

Hall v. Acadia Ins. Co., 801 A.2d 993 (Me. 2002); Collins v. Kelley, 179 A. 65 (Me. 1935) — repair-or-ACV collision language does not mandate residual DV.

Third-party residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Maine decisions on auto residual DV against a tortfeasor.

Why handle DV in Montana?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~13,700 police-reported crashes
• Billings / Missoula / Bozeman plus interstate freight
• Third-party inherent DV is still an open supreme-court question

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,400 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$4.9M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.6M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$1.1M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Montana filing path

First-party “replacement” can mean restoration with no remaining diminution. Third-party inherent DV was treated as unripe / open in Hop — pursue with comps and do not overstate controlling authority.

Statute of limitations

2 years — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-207.

First-party restoration

Eby v. Foremost Ins. Co., 374 P.2d 857 (Mont. 1962) — restoration is not complete if diminution remains after repair.

Third-party inherent DV

Hop v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 261 P.3d 981 (Mont. 2011) — availability of third-party residual DV still an open question; that file was unripe.

Why handle DV in New Hampshire?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~13,500 police-reported crashes
• Seacoast / Manchester–Nashua volume
• No reported auto residual-DV decisions — LOU is the published path

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,400 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$4.9M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.6M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$1.1M realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

New Hampshire filing path

No reported New Hampshire decisions on first- or third-party auto residual DV. Handle reports with comps; lead with LOU on repairable files. Confirm current authority before demand.

Statute of limitations

3 years — N.H. Rev. Stat. § 508:4.

Auto residual DV

MWL survey: no reported New Hampshire decisions on first- or third-party inherent/residual auto DV.

Why handle DV in Hawaii?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~10,400 police-reported crashes
• Oahu concentrates volume
• LOU (including total-loss replacement time) is developed; auto DV is not

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$3.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.2M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$793k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Hawaii filing path

No reported Hawaii decisions on auto residual DV (diminution appears in condemnation / realty). Still handle third-party files with island comps. LOU is the developed motor-vehicle theory.

Statute of limitations

2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7.

Auto residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Hawaii decisions allowing auto residual DV in first- or third-party claims. Diminution appears in condemnation / real-property valuation.

Why handle DV in South Dakota?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~10,300 police-reported crashes
• I-29 / I-90 freight plus Sioux Falls
• First-party inherent DV after full repair is out

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$3.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.2M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$793k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

South Dakota filing path

First-party collision after a full repair does not add inherent DV. No reported third-party auto residual-DV holding — handle with comps and pair LOU on repairable vehicles.

Statute of limitations

6 years — S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-13.

First-party

Culhane v. W. Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 704 N.W.2d 287 (S.D. 2005) — majority rule; clear policy language; no diminished value after full repair.

Third-party residual DV

MWL survey: no reported South Dakota decisions on auto residual DV against a tortfeasor.

Why handle DV in North Dakota?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~9,900 police-reported crashes
• I-94 / Fargo–Bismarck corridor
• Statutory PD measure includes loss of use pending restoration

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$3.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.2M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$793k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

North Dakota filing path

N.D.C.C. § 32-03-09.1 presumes repair cost plus LOU pending restoration, or (if restoration is impracticable) pre-/post market difference plus LOU pending replacement. No reported first-party auto inherent-DV decision.

Statute of limitations

6 years — N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16.

Statutory PD measure

N.D.C.C. § 32-03-09.1; Sullivan v. Pulkrabek, 611 N.W.2d 162 (N.D. 2000) — repair + LOU pending restoration, or FMV difference + LOU pending replacement if restoration is impracticable.

Why handle DV in Delaware?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~9,700 police-reported crashes
• I-95 / New Castle County volume
• First-party “repair and replace” does not include diminution

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$3.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.2M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$793k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Delaware filing path

Delaware Supreme Court: “repair and replace” is unambiguous and does not include diminution in value. No reported third-party auto residual-DV holding — comps plus LOU.

Statute of limitations

2 years — 10 Del. C. § 8107.

First-party

O’Brien v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281 (Del. 2001) — “repair and replace” does not contemplate payment for diminution of value.

Third-party residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Delaware decisions on auto residual DV against a tortfeasor.

Why handle DV in Wyoming?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~9,500 police-reported crashes
• I-80 / I-25 freight plus Casper / Cheyenne
• No auto residual-DV holding; LOU uses rental/usable value with certainty

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~1,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$3.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$1.2M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$793k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Wyoming filing path

No reported Wyoming decisions on auto residual DV (diminution appears in inverse-condemnation). Handle with comps; LOU is the published personal-property theory.

Statute of limitations

4 years — Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105.

Auto residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Wyoming decisions on first- or third-party auto residual DV.

Why handle DV in Rhode Island?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~7,600 police-reported crashes
• Providence metro
• Long 10-year property SOL — still demand promptly while comps are fresh

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~800 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$2.8M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$933k; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$635k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Rhode Island filing path

A superior-court decision found ambiguity whether “repair or replace … like kind and quality” includes inherent DV (jury question). No reported third-party auto residual-DV holding. Long SOL does not replace a current appraisal.

Statute of limitations

10 years — R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13. Still appraise while comps are current.

First-party (trial-level)

Cazabat v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1910089 (R.I. Super. Ct. 2000) — possible ambiguity whether like-kind repair/replace includes inherent DV.

Third-party residual DV

MWL survey: no reported Rhode Island decisions on auto residual DV against a tortfeasor.

Why handle DV in Vermont?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~7,200 police-reported crashes
• I-89 / I-91 corridor
• Insurance bulletin plus pre-/post-FMV tort measure

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~700 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$2.5M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$817k; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$555k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Vermont filing path

Department Bulletin 164: absent contrary policy language, a first-party policy must pay diminished value using a fair, articulable method. Tort measure is FMV immediately before minus FMV immediately after; repair cost and repaired value are admissible.

Statute of limitations

3 years — 12 V.S.A. § 512.

First-party bulletin

Vermont Bulletin 164 (8-10-11) — absent contrary policy language, pay diminished value; no mandated formula, but the process must be fair and equitable.

Third-party FMV

Kinney v. Cloutier, 211 A.2d 246 (Vt. 1965); Wells v. Vill. of Orleans, Inc., 315 A.2d 463 (Vt. 1974) — FMV before minus FMV after; repair cost and repaired value admissible.

Why handle DV in Alaska?

Based on NHTSA state traffic data (2023):

• ~5,600 police-reported crashes
• Anchorage / Mat-Su / Fairbanks
• Restatement § 928 recognized; no auto-specific residual-DV holding

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~600 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$2.1M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$700k; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$476k realized firm share.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts — State Traffic Data (2023).

Alaska filing path

No Alaska auto first-party DV holding. Willett (criminal mischief) acknowledges Restatement (Second) of Torts § 928 — repair plus remaining market difference in other jurisdictions — without directly authorizing auto residual DV. Handle with comps.

Statute of limitations

2 years — Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070.

Restatement analog

Willett v. State, 826 P.2d 1142 (Alaska 1992) — recognizes Restatement § 928 repair-plus-remaining-value in other jurisdictions; does not itself authorize auto residual DV.