Home
B2B Services
Onboarding

Partner onboarding

For law firms & B2B partners

Diminished value & loss of use — without the mix-up

Switch between products below. DV covers market loss after repair; LOU covers the cost of being without the vehicle. State guides ordered by illustrated firm opportunity: Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, California, Missouri, Colorado, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Kansas.

Choose a product Email info@mydvpal.com

What is diminished value?

Diminished value is the lost market value a vehicle sustains after an accident — on top of ordinary depreciation — even when repairs restore it to pre-accident condition. A reasonable buyer will not pay the same price for a wrecked-then-repaired vehicle as for one with a clean history, and the accident remains on vehicle history reports (Carfax / AutoCheck).

Three types carriers and courts recognize

Inherent

Loss from any accident of record after a proper repair — the claim type most firms pursue.

Repair-related

Extra loss when repairs fail to restore appearance or function.

Immediate

Loss measured before repairs (e.g., trading while still damaged). Less common.

When to file

Not-at-fault collisions (third-party liability)
Hit-and-run / UM-UIM paths where coverage allows

Vehicle fit

Generally: under 10 years old and under 100,000 miles
Better chances: under 5 years old and under 50,000 miles
Client typically owns the vehicle (not a lease)
Not at fault; vehicle should not be totaled
Many prior accidents raise rejection risk

Usually not

Client was at fault
Leased vehicles without lessor coordination
States that bar or tightly restrict DV (e.g., Michigan)

Carriers often lean on simplified formulas (including “17c”) that can understate real market loss. An independent appraisal with local comps is the stronger demand package.

State guide

Markets ranked by illustrated total DV opportunity for firms (crash volume × eligibility assumptions). Pick one for SOL and controlling authority.

Opportunity

Why handle DV in Texas?

Based on reportable crashes in Texas (2022):

Over 650,000 car crashes
1 person killed every 1 hour 57 minutes
1 person injured every 2 minutes 9 seconds
1 reportable crash every 57 seconds

Assuming only 10% of crashes are DV-eligible: ~65,000 claims. At a ~$3,500 median DV: ~$228M total market; ~⅓ law-firm share potential ~$75M; at a ~68% median settlement ratio ~$53M realized firm share.

Source: TxDOT Crash Statistics (2022). Recent statewide reporting continues to exceed 600,000 crashes per year.

Legal snapshot

Texas filing path

DV is typically a third-party property-damage claim against the at-fault driver’s liability carrier — not under the client’s own collision coverage.

Statute of limitations: 2 years from the date of loss — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003.
Supreme Court — first-party policy: American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003): standard personal auto policy does not obligate a first-party insurer to pay DV after adequate repair. Practical takeaway: pursue the at-fault carrier.
Supreme Court — diminution framework: Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995): guidance on diminution-in-value damages and repair costs.
Claim-handling clock: Tex. Ins. Code § 542.055 — acknowledge, investigate, and request needed items within 15 days (30 business days for eligible surplus lines). Statute text

Opportunity

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.

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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.

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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.

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Opportunity

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).

Legal snapshot

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.

Workforce math

Illustrative monthly volume at a ~$3,500 median DV and ~68% settlement ratio.

Cases / month	Total DV	Potential firm share (⅓)	After ~68% settlement
~10	~$35,000	~$11,500 / mo · ~$138k / yr	~$7,800 / mo · ~$93k / yr
~25	~$87,500	~$29,000 / mo · ~$348k / yr	~$19,700 / mo · ~$236k / yr
~50	~$175,000	~$59,000 / mo · ~$700k / yr	~$40,000 / mo · ~$480k / yr
~100	~$350,000	~$117,000 / mo · ~$1.4M / yr	~$79,500 / mo · ~$955k / yr

Example settlement split

Estimated DV: $8,000
Settled DV: $5,100
Law firm share (⅓ of settled): $1,700
Client share after fee illustration: ~$3,000

Staff cost context: roughly $20–$25/h (~$3.5k–$4.3k monthly). Clients keep more money in their pocket when DV is actually pursued.

Workflow

Five steps from documents to settlement.

Gather

Repair estimate, optional before/after vehicle photos.

Send

Email documents to info@mydvpal.com.

Report

Receive the DV report (typical 24–48 hour turnaround).

Demand

Attach the report to your demand package for the carrier.

Resolve

Negotiate and settle.

DV pricing

Flat fee per report — same plans as the public Pricing page.

Common Plan

$400 per DV report

Average turnaround 2–4 business days

Calculation details with market data
Appraisal expert opinion
Comparable vehicles in the market

Accelerated Plan

$600 per DV report

Maximum turnaround of 24 hours

Everything in Common
Priority rush processing

Exotic Plan

$800 per DV report

Exotic and hard-to-comp vehicles

Full DV report for exotic vehicles
Proprietary model when comps are scarce
Appraisal expert opinion included

Live plan cards: Pricing. Partner / volume programs: B2B Services. Bundle DV + LOU for $450 on Bundle & Subscription.

What is loss of use?

Loss of use is compensation a vehicle owner may recover from an at-fault party for being unable to use their vehicle while it is repaired or replaced. In auto claims it is typically measured by the reasonable cost of renting a comparable replacement vehicle for the time reasonably necessary to complete repairs.

First-party vs third-party

First-party claims go to the owner’s own carrier and often use a standardized day-count formula (for example, one repair day per four labor hours, weekends, and administrative days) multiplied by a daily rental rate.

Third-party claims seek damages from the at-fault party under state tort standards. Measures can include the cost of renting a substitute, the rental value of the owner’s vehicle, lost profit, or interest — depending on jurisdiction.

When LOU usually applies

Repairable vehicle out of service for a reasonable period
Need for a same-class rental while the car is in shop
Third-party liability where state law allows recovery

Watch-outs

Rules and caps vary widely by state
Total-loss paths may differ from repairable cases
Recovery is generally limited to a reasonable repair / replacement window

How we calculate LOU

Same-class market rates × billable days (LOU window minus any rental invoice days).

Our report approach

Infer comparable rental class from the subject vehicle
Count inclusive days from shop-in / shop-out (and claim dates)
Subtract optional rental-invoice days when the claimant already rented
Pull live same-class rates from major agencies near the claim ZIP
Billable days × average daily rate = total loss-of-use value

Illustrative first-party formula

Often used by carriers for day count (example only):

26 labor hours ÷ 4 = 6.5 repair days
+ 2 weekend days = 8.5
+ 3 administrative days = 11.5
× $100 daily rate = $1,150

Our LOU report instead anchors days to the shop window and rates to live comparable-class rentals.

LOU state guide

Same markets as DV, ranked by firm opportunity — recoverability, measure, and key authorities.

Recoverability

Texas LOU

Loss of use is recoverable. The plaintiff must establish the reasonable rental value of a substitute car for the time reasonably required to repair or replace it. The compensatory period is the time the plaintiff was deprived of use.

Allowed in total-destruction cases as well as repairable claims
Damages must be reasonable
Plaintiff need not actually rent a replacement to recover

Authorities

Texas citations

Measure / period: Luna v. N. Star Dodge Sales, Inc., 667 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. 1984) — reasonable rental value; period of deprivation; rental not required.
Total loss: J&D Towing, LLC v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 478 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. 2016) — LOU available in total-destruction cases; lost profits may also be available when property cannot be used during repair/replacement.
Reasonableness: Balderas-Ramirez v. Felder (Tex. App. 2017), rev. denied (Apr. 6, 2018) — LOU damages must be reasonable.
Lost profits proof: Must be proven with reasonable certainty; not hypothetical — Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. 1994).

Recoverability

Florida LOU

Florida courts apply Restatement-style loss-of-use principles to damaged motor vehicles as a separate damages claim. Measure is typically the reasonable rental value of a substitute during repairs — including for pleasure automobiles.

Available when the owner suffers a complete deprivation of use (including repair time when the vehicle cannot be used)
Actual rental of another vehicle is not required
Special damages for LOU may be awarded on a total loss

Authorities

Florida citations

Rental value / no actual rental: Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2d Dist. 1968); Alonso v. Fernandez, 379 So.2d 685, 687 (Fla. App. 1980).
Complete deprivation: AT&T Corp. v. Lanzo Const. Co., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
Total loss: Wajay Bakery, Inc. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 177 So.2d 544 (Fla. App. 1965).
Lost profits vs rental value: Business “profits” from loss of use are generally too variable; best evidence is actual or theoretical reasonable rental value — Maryland Cas. Co. v. Fla. Produce Distributors, Inc., 498 So.2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).
Jury instructions: Florida Standard Jury Instructions 501.2 — consider loss from being deprived of use during the period reasonably required for replacement or repair.

Recoverability

Georgia LOU

Recovery for loss of use (the time the insured was deprived of use) is appropriate. Hire of a substitute is an acceptable measure; courts have not clearly required that a substitute actually be hired.

For a repairable automobile, maximum recovery including LOU may not exceed fair market value before the damage
No LOU recovery when the vehicle is substantially destroyed or not substantially repairable
Lost profits recoverable only with a reasonably accurate calculation (not speculative)

Authorities

Georgia citations

Recoverability: Atlanta Furniture Co. v. Walker, 181 S.E. 498 (Ga. 1935).
Cap / total vs repairable: Firestone Tire, etc., Co. v. Jackson Transp. Co., 191 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. 1972); Boral Bricks, Inc. v. Old S. Transp. Mgmt., Inc., 402 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. App. 1991) — no LOU when substantially destroyed / not substantially repairable; repairable FMV cap.
Substitute hire: Archer v. Monroe, 302 S.E.2d 583, 585 (Ga. App. 1983).
Evidence: Rental-value evidence must not be based on hearsay — Columbus Dodge, Inc. v. Garlock, 266 S.E.2d 311, 313 (Ga. App. 1980).
Lost profits: Molly Pitcher Canning Co. v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 253 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. App. 1979).

Recoverability

Illinois LOU

Loss of use is recoverable for the time reasonably necessary for repairs, measured by rental value of another vehicle — whether or not a substitute is actually rented.

Same framework also recognizes reasonable repair cost and post-repair diminution (stack carefully on the demand)
No LOU when the vehicle is substantially destroyed or not substantially repairable
Commercial vehicles may use rental cost or net lost profits as alternative measures

Authorities

Illinois citations

Measure / rental not required: Fairchild v. Keene, 416 N.E.2d 748, 749 (Ill. App. 1981) — repair, post-repair diminution, and LOU via rental value; rental not required.
Credible rental-value proof: Welter v. Schell, 252 Ill. App. 586, 589 (Ill. App. 1929) — actual rental not required if credible value testimony is available.
Total / destroyed: Latham v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 164 Ill. App. 559 (Ill. App. 1911) — no LOU when substantially destroyed / not substantially repairable.
Commercial / lost profits: Plesniak v. Wiegand, 335 N.E.2d 131, 139 (Ill. App. 1975) — rental of replacement or net profits alternatives.

Recoverability

California LOU

Loss of use is calculated by reference to the rental value of similar property the plaintiff can hire during the deprivation period. A substitute need not actually be rented.

Owner must prove reasonable cost to rent a similar vehicle for the time reasonably necessary to repair or replace
Cannot recover without proof the vehicle is/was intended to be used
Upon proper pleading/proof, LOU of a totally destroyed commercial vehicle may be recoverable

Authorities

California citations

Measure: 23 Cal. Jur. 3d, Damages, § 69; Collin v. Am. Empire Ins. Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 787, 818 (1994); Judicial Council Civil Jury Instruction 3903M.
Rental not required: Malinson v. Black, 188 P.2d 788 (Cal. App. 1948).
Total loss (commercial): Reynolds v. Bank of Am. Nat’l T. & S. Ass’n, 345 P.2d 926, 928 (Cal. 1959) (airplane).
Intended use: Metz v. Soares, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1255 (2006).
Lost profits: Recoverable if proven and without double recovery; if full profits recovered, that includes LOU — Tremeroli v. Austin Trailer Equip. Co., 102 Cal. App. 2d 464, 483 (1951).

Recoverability

Missouri LOU

Loss of use is recoverable. Measure is the cost of hiring/renting a replacement during the time reasonably required for repairs; the plaintiff must prove reasonableness of the damages.

Appropriate to pursue rental-value evidence even when a substitute was not actually rented
No LOU when the vehicle is substantially destroyed or not substantially repairable
Lost profits only when no replacement vehicle was available (and proven)

Authorities

Missouri citations

Measure / reasonableness: Stallman v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. App. 1974) — hire/rental cost during reasonable repair time; burden on plaintiff to prove reasonableness.
Rental not required (practice): Conley v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 259 S.W. 153, 155 (Mo. App. 1921) — supports pursuing rental-value evidence even without an actual rental.
Total / destroyed: German v. Centaur Lime Co., 295 S.W. 475 (Mo. App. 1927) — no LOU when substantially destroyed / not substantially repairable; see also Orr v. Williams, 379 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. App. 1964) (full-value recovery for destroyed business property excludes LOU).

Recoverability

Colorado LOU

An owner may recover for loss of use for the length of time reasonably needed for repair, even if the property is not actually repaired — so long as that time is reasonably proven.

A substitute need not actually be rented to use rental value as the measure
No caselaw expressly barring LOU on a total-loss claim — strong argument it can be sustained
Plaintiff may elect reasonable rental value or net lost profits (not double recovery)

Authorities

Colorado citations

Reasonable repair period: Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Ctr., Inc., 832 P.2d 1086, 1089 (Colo. App. 1992).
Rental not required: Cf. Francis v. Steve Johnson Pontiac–GMC–Jeep, Inc., 724 P.2d 84 (Colo. App. 1986).
Election of measure / lost profits: Koenig v. PurCo Fleet Services, Inc., 285 P.3d 979 (Colo. 2012) — reasonable rental value of a chattel or net lost profits; plaintiff may elect which measure.

Recoverability

Tennessee LOU

Loss of use is available when the vehicle is repairable. Measure may consider reasonable rental cost for the period and the use (or lack of use) the plaintiff would have made of it.

Commercial exception when property is irreparable and cannot be replaced within a reasonable time
Lost profits possible when destroyed property cannot be replaced reasonably quickly — not when completely destroyed and irreparable without that exception
Damages must be true losses that could not reasonably be avoided

Authorities

Tennessee citations

Repairable only (general rule): Prewitt v. Brown, 525 S.W.3d 616 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) — LOU when the vehicle is repairable.
Commercial / irreparable exception: Tire Shredders, Inc. v. ERM-N. Cent., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 849 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); rental-cost / use considerations.
Lost profits: Waggoner Motors, Inc. v. Waverly Church of Christ, 159 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); see also DKB Trucking Co., LLC v. JNJ Express, Inc., 2012 WL 3866462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Avoidable loss: Scott v. Houston, 2010 WL 680984 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) — true losses only; not damages reasonably avoidable.

Recoverability

Oklahoma LOU

Loss of use is recoverable for a period reasonably required for replacement and repair (including a reasonable time to determine repairability), in a reasonable amount. Measure equals the rental or usable value while the owner is without the vehicle.

Allowed on total-loss claims from destruction until replacement
For replacement downtime, owner may need to show a similar rental was not available while the replacement is delivered
Lost profits recoverable with preponderance proof (not barred by uncertainty as to exact amount)

Authorities

Oklahoma citations

Period / amount: DTS Tank Serv., Inc. v. Vanderveen, 683 P.2d 1345 (Okla. 1984); Chambers v. Cunningham, 5 P.2d 378 (Okla. 1931) — reasonable repair/replacement period; reasonable amount.
Rental / usable value: Brennen v. Aston, 84 P.3d 99 (Okla. 2003) — LOU equals rental or usable value during deprivation.
Total loss: DTS Tank Serv., Inc. v. Vanderveen, supra — LOU from destruction until replacement; for that window, show a similar rental was not available while the replacement is delivered.
Lost profits: Boatsman v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 30 P.3d 1174 (Okla. 2001); Ferrell Const. Co. v. Russell Creek Coal Co., 645 P.2d 1005 (Okla. 1982).

Recoverability

Arkansas LOU

Loss of use is recoverable. Measure may be rental value (or amount realizable by renting out the article), cost of hiring a substitute, or ordinary profits from use of the vehicle.

Not limited to partially damaged vehicles — total destruction can still support LOU (prior vs subsequent value framing)
No direct holding requiring an actual rental for business vehicles; chart notes a trend allowing rental-value proof without hiring
Ordinary profits are an available LOU measure when proven

Authorities

Arkansas citations

Measures: Sharp v. Great S. Coaches, Inc., 510 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Ark. 1974) — rental value / hire cost / ordinary profits.
Rental not required (trend): Stevens v. Mid-Continent Investments, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 208, 209 (Ark. 1974) — recognizes other states’ no-actual-rental approach.
Total destruction: Fryar v. Sanders, 784 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Ark. 1990) — LOU not excluded on total destruction; prior/subsequent value measure applies.

Recoverability

Kansas LOU

Loss of use is recoverable for the period reasonably necessary to complete repairs (when feasible). Recovery may not exceed the vehicle’s value before the injury.

Measure may be the cost of renting a substitute while repairs are made
Owner need not actually rent to use rental value as the measure
Generally not available on totally destroyed vehicles — limited special-circumstances exceptions (e.g., specialized vehicles with no substitute)

Authorities

Kansas citations

Cap / reasonable repair period: Venable v. Imperial Volkswagen, Inc., 519 P.2d 667 (Kan. 1974) — reasonable repair period; amount recovered may not exceed pre-injury vehicle value.
Rental measure: Nelson v. Hy-Grade Construction & Materials, Inc., 527 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1974) — cost of renting a substitute while repairs are made.
Rental not required: Warren v. Heartland Auto. Services, Inc., 144 P.3d 73 (Kan. App. 2006) — need not actually rent; but don’t fail to offer rental-value proof when available.
Destroyed / special circumstances: Peterson v. Bachar, 392 P.2d 853 (Kan. 1964) — generally no LOU on total destruction; limited exceptions when a suitable substitute is unavailable.

Survey synthesized from Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C., Loss of Use in All 50 States (chart last updated 1/13/22) — educational overview only, not legal advice. Confirm controlling law for the claim jurisdiction before demand.

LOU workflow

Collect these facts before you email the file.

Gather

Estimate, shop-in / shop-out, date of loss, drivability at accident (yes/no), and optional rental invoice if the claimant already rented for part of the downtime.

Send

Email to info@mydvpal.com with subject “LOU report request”.

Class & rates

We map rental class and pull same-class market rates.

Report

Receive the LOU calculation, methodology, and credentials.

Demand

Attach to the PD demand — bundle with DV when both apply.

Consumer checklist: Get Started — Loss of Use.

LOU pricing

Simple per-report fee; bundle when you need both products.

Loss of Use — Common

$100 per LOU report

Same-class rental rates
Inclusive shop-in / shop-out days
Optional rental invoice day offset
Methodology & credentials

DV + LOU Bundle

$450 both reports

Common DV + LOU together
Subscriptions / volume — custom

Bundle: Get Started. Subscriptions / volume: Pricing or B2B Services.

Ready to onboard your firm?

Tell us your state, product mix (DV / LOU / both), and monthly volume — we’ll tailor the packet and turnaround.

Email info@mydvpal.com →