Diminished Value Claim Rules by State
Your car was repaired but is now worth less because it has an accident on its record. Who pays for that lost value depends on whose insurer you claim from and which state you are in.
Short answer
If the other driver caused the crash, courts in most states let you claim diminished value from their insurer on top of the repair bill, if you can prove it. From your own insurer it is much harder: courts in 24 states have said standard policies don't pay it, and only Georgia, Oregon, Vermont and Washington require it unless the policy clearly excludes it.
Two kinds of claim
- Third-party: you claim from the at-fault driver's insurer. This is a claim in tort, where the usual rule is that you are owed the repair cost plus any value the car still lost after a proper repair, up to its pre-accident value.
- First-party: you claim from your own collision or comprehensive coverage. This depends on the policy's wording; most say the insurer will "repair or replace", and most courts read that as paying for the repair only. Many policies now exclude diminished value in so many words.
The rule in every state
| State | From the at-fault driver's insurer | From your own insurer |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No appellate decision found allowing post-repair diminished value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Pritchett v. State Farm, 834 So.2d 785 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002): "repair or replace" pays repairs only. |
| Alaska | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No direct ruling; Willett v. State, 826 P.2d 1142 (Alaska 1992) cites the Restatement rule that allows it. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No Alaska decision on auto policies. |
| Arizona | Yes, if you can prove it Farmers Ins. Co. 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): repair cost plus remaining loss in value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Johnson v. State Farm, 754 P.2d 330 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). |
| Arkansas | Yes, if you can prove it MFA Ins. Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 545 S.W.2d 70 (Ark. 1977): if repairs don't restore value, the before-and-after difference. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policy wording. |
| California | Yes, if you can prove it California jury instruction CACI 3903J allows the post-repair loss in value plus repair cost, up to the pre-accident value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Ray v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 200 Cal. App. 3d 1411 (1988): a proper repair ends the insurer's duty. |
| Colorado | Yes, if you can prove it Trujillo v. Wilson, 189 P.2d 147 (Colo. 1948). |
Not settled; depends on your policy Hyden v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 20 P.3d 1222 (Colo. App. 2000) says "like kind and quality" means similar in function and value; no ruling on post-repair diminished value. |
| Connecticut | Yes, if you can prove it Littlejohn v. Elionsky, 36 A.2d 52 (Conn. 1944); Cassella v. Lenches (2010): repair cost plus remaining loss in value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Delaware | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording O'Brien v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281 (Del. 2001). |
| Florida | Yes, if you can prove it McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So.2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2002). |
| Georgia | Yes, if you can prove it Perma Ad Ideas v. Mayville, 282 S.E.2d 128 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981). |
Yes, unless your policy clearly excludes it State Farm v. Mabry, 556 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 2001): insurers must assess and pay diminished value on physical damage claims under policies like State Farm's. |
| Hawaii | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Idaho | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Illinois | Yes, if you can prove it Trailmobile Div. v. Higgs, 297 N.E.2d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Sims v. Allstate Ins. Co., 851 N.E.2d 701 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). |
| Indiana | Yes, if you can prove it Wiese-GMC, Inc. v. Wells, 626 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Also owed under uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage: Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. 2005). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 2005). |
| Iowa | Yes, if you can prove it Hawkeye Motors v. McDowell, 541 N.W.2d 914 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995), if proven with evidence. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policy wording. |
| Kansas | Yes, if you can prove it Broadie v. Randall, 216 P. 1103 (Kan. 1923). |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on personal auto policy wording. |
| Kentucky | Yes, if you can prove it Muncie v. Wiesemann, 548 S.W.3d 877 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018); Conrad v. Shrout (Ky. Ct. App. 2018). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Tomes v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 825 S.W.2d 284 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991). |
| Louisiana | Yes, if you can prove it By statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.17, up to the vehicle's pre-accident value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Campbell v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 822 So.2d 617 (La. Ct. App. 2001); Townsend v. State Farm, 793 So.2d 473 (La. Ct. App. 2001). |
| Maine | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Hall v. Acadia Ins. Co., 801 A.2d 993 (Me. 2002). |
| Maryland | Yes, if you can prove it Fred Frederick Motors v. Krause, 277 A.2d 464 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1971). |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Massachusetts | Yes, if you can prove it McGilloway v. Safety Ins. Co., 174 N.E.3d 1191 (Mass. 2021): owed under Part 4 of the standard policy. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Given v. Commerce Ins. Co., 440 Mass. 207 (2003); Division of Insurance advisory opinion (May 2002): the standard policy doesn't cover it. |
| Michigan | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule Car damage claims against the at-fault driver are limited to the $3,000 mini-tort (MCL 500.3135(3)(e)); no decision found on diminished value inside it. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Driscoll v. State Farm, 227 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. Mich. 2002). |
| Minnesota | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy Only an old ruling allowing it (Ciresi v. Globe & Rutgers, 244 N.W. 688 (Minn. 1932)); modern policies untested. |
| Mississippi | Yes, if you can prove it Thomas v. Global Boat Builders, 482 So.2d 1112 (Miss. 1986), with proper proof. |
Not settled; depends on your policy Older rulings allowed it (Potomac Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 57 So.2d 158 (Miss. 1952)); modern policy wording untested. |
| Missouri | Yes, if you can prove it Rook v. John F. Oliver Trucking, 556 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Lupo v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002), where the policy is clear; if repairs fall short of restoring value, Williams v. Farm Bureau, 299 S.W.2d 587 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). |
| Montana | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule Open question (Hop v. Safeco, 2011). |
Not settled; depends on your policy Eby v. Foremost Ins. Co., 374 P.2d 857 (Mont. 1962) suggests yes; the Supreme Court called it open in Hop v. Safeco, 261 P.3d 981 (Mont. 2011). |
| Nebraska | Limited: repair cost is the usual measure Chlopek v. Schmall, 396 N.W.2d 103 (Neb. 1986): if the car is repaired, the measure is repair cost and loss of use; lost market value only if not repaired. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Nevada | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Nev. Admin. Code 686A.680 requires only restoring the car to its condition before the loss. |
| New Hampshire | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| New Jersey | Yes, if you can prove it Fanfarillo v. East End Motor Co., 411 A.2d 1167 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Kieffer v. High Point Ins. Co., 25 A.3d 1206 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011), where the policy excludes it. |
| New Mexico | Yes, if you can prove it Hubbard v. Albuquerque Truck Ctr., 958 P.2d 111 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Davis v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 142 P.3d 17 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). |
| New York | Yes, if you can prove it Mostly for new, rare or appreciating cars: Rosenfield v. Choberka, 529 N.Y.S.2d 455 (1988); Parkoff v. Stavsky (App. Div. 2013). |
Not settled; depends on your policy Only an old theft-claim ruling (Edwards v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., 1922). |
| North Carolina | Yes, if you can prove it Measured as the before-and-after difference in value (DeLaney v. Henderson-Gilmer, 135 S.E. 791 (N.C. 1926)). Liability policies must offer appraisal when you and the insurer are more than $2,000 or 25% apart on it (N.C.G.S. 20-279.21(d1)); a release for repairs doesn't bar a diminished value claim made within 30 days after repair (11 NCAC 04.0421). |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling that standard collision coverage pays it. |
| North Dakota | Limited: repair cost is the usual measure By statute the measure is presumed to be repair cost plus loss of use (N.D.C.C. 32-03-09.1); value loss only if repair is impossible or impracticable. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Ohio | Yes, if you can prove it Rakich v. Anthem, 875 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007); State Farm v. Cheeks (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Nationwide v. Shah, 2004-Ohio-1291 (Ohio Ct. App.). |
| Oklahoma | Yes, if you can prove it Brennen v. Aston, 84 P.3d 99 (Okla. 2003). |
Not settled; depends on your policy Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Diffie, 270 P.2d 634 (Okla. 1954) used the before-and-after value measure; modern policies untested. |
| Oregon | Yes, if you can prove it EAM Advertising Agency v. Helies, 954 P.2d 812 (Or. Ct. App. 1998), with proof. |
Yes, unless your policy clearly excludes it Gonzales v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Or., 196 P.3d 1 (Or. 2008): if repair can't restore the car to its pre-loss condition, the remaining loss in value is covered. |
| Pennsylvania | Yes, if you can prove it Holt v. Pariser, 54 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1947). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Lobozzo v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc., 263 A.2d 432 (Pa. 1970): payment for diminished value is not something the public can reasonably expect. |
| Rhode Island | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found; Rhode Island's appraisal law (R.I. Gen. Laws 27-10.4-1) lets a claimant dispute the amount of loss. |
Not settled; depends on your policy Cazabat v. Metropolitan (R.I. Super. Ct. 2000): the policy wording was ambiguous, a question for a jury. |
| South Carolina | Yes, if you can prove it Newman v. Brown, 90 S.E.2d 649 (S.C. 1955). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Schulmeyer v. State Farm, 579 S.E.2d 132 (S.C. 2003). |
| South Dakota | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Culhane v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 704 N.W.2d 287 (S.D. 2005). |
| Tennessee | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule Repair cost or the before-and-after difference, not both; post-repair loss not clearly recognised (GEICO v. Bloodworth, Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Black v. State Farm, 101 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). |
| Texas | Yes, if you can prove it TDI Bulletin B-0027-00 says a liability insurer may owe a third-party claimant the loss of market value even after a complete repair; courts allow repair cost or value loss without double recovery. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003); TDI Bulletin B-0027-00. |
| Utah | Yes, if you can prove it Metcalf v. Mellen, 192 P. 676 (Utah 1920). |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| Vermont | Yes, if you can prove it Kinney v. Cloutier, 211 A.2d 246 (Vt. 1965). |
Yes, unless your policy clearly excludes it Vermont Insurance Bulletin 164 (2011): absent specific policy language to the contrary, the policy must pay diminished value. |
| Virginia | Yes, if you can prove it Averett v. Shircliff, 237 S.E.2d 92 (Va. 1977). |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Bickel v. Nationwide, 143 S.E.2d 903 (Va. 1965). |
| Washington | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule The pattern jury instruction uses the lesser of repair cost or the before-and-after difference; no decision on post-repair loss. |
Yes, unless your policy clearly excludes it Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 267 P.3d 998 (Wash. 2011): "repair or replace" covers diminished value unless the policy clearly excludes it. |
| Washington D.C. | Yes, if you can prove it American Service Center Assocs. v. Helton, 867 A.2d 235 (D.C. 2005): repair cost plus remaining loss in value, up to the total loss in value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
| West Virginia | Yes, if you can prove it Only with structural damage on a car of significant value: Ellis v. King, 400 S.E.2d 235 (W. Va. 1990); Brooks v. City of Huntington, 768 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2014). |
Not settled; depends on your policy No authority for first-party claims (Insurance Commissioner informational letters, 2001). |
| Wisconsin | Yes, if you can prove it Hellenbrand v. Hilliard, 687 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004), if repairs didn't restore the value. |
No, under standard "repair or replace" wording Wildin v. American Family, 638 N.W.2d 87 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). |
| Wyoming | No court ruling found; often argued under the general rule No decision found on post-repair diminished value. |
Not settled; depends on your policy No ruling on auto policies. |
Rules checked October 24, 2026. These are the leading cases we found; a newer ruling or your policy's own wording can change the answer. "No court ruling found" means just that, not that the claim is barred.
How to make the claim
- Wait for the repair to finish and get the final invoice; the claim is for value lost after a proper repair.
- Get evidence of the loss: an independent appraisal or dealer trade-in quotes with and without the accident history. The 17c formula is the insurer's starting point, not the market.
- Send a written demand to the at-fault driver's insurer with the invoice, photos and the appraisal.
- If they refuse, file a complaint with your state insurance department or sue in small claims court before the property damage deadline runs out.
Not legal, financial, or insurance advice. This page summarises rules and data for general education only. Insurance laws, deadlines, and formulas vary by state, by policy, and by insurer, and they change over time. Verify anything important with your insurance policy, your state department of insurance, or a licensed attorney before relying on it.
What to do next
Frequently asked questions
Which states allow diminished value claims against your own insurer?
Georgia, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, unless the policy clearly excludes it. Georgia goes furthest: since State Farm v. Mabry (2001) insurers there must assess diminished value on physical damage claims. In most other states, courts have read standard "repair or replace" wording as paying for the repair only.
Can I claim diminished value if the accident wasn't my fault?
In most states, yes, from the at-fault driver's insurer, as part of your property damage claim. You have to show the car is worth less after the repair, usually with an independent appraisal. Michigan limits the whole car damage claim to $3,000 (the mini-tort).
Does the 17c formula decide my diminished value?
No. 17c came from a Georgia class action settlement and is what many insurers use as a starting point. It caps the loss at 10% of the car's value. A real market appraisal often comes out higher, especially for newer cars.