A Frustrating Diminished Value Experience
Thread Starter
Instructor
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 139
Likes: 41
From: East Coast
I finally decided to contact a lawyer, thanks to all of you. Based on replies from Idamelio, Yojeffo and dak656 I called Supercarclaims.com. I spoke with Steve Calamusa who is a partner with the law firm Gordon & Partners. He was very knowledgable, friendly and explained everything. Steve supports the PCA magazine. He agreed to take my case on a contingency basis. Let's hope we prevail. I'll keep you updated.
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 6,344
Likes: 4,272
From: Mid Atlantic
I finally decided to contact a lawyer, thanks to all of you. Based on replies from Idamelio, Yojeffo and dak656 I called Supercarclaims.com. I spoke with Steve Calamusa who is a partner with the law firm Gordon & Partners. He was very knowledgable, friendly and explained everything. Steve supports the PCA magazine. He agreed to take my case on a contingency basis. Let's hope we prevail. I'll keep you updated.
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 104
Likes: 12
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Is it a windfall though? When a damaged vehicle is repaired the immediate loss is settled rather fairly through insurance. However, the unrealized loss (diminished value) is not recovered in this process. If the OP has to sell his vehicle for $10K less than FMV because of a prior accident caused by someone else that's still a forced loss. It appears that NY law sees it differently, or perhaps it's much too complicated to judge diminished value for every scenario. Or, insurance companies know how this will play out (higher premiums across the board) which may put some insurance companies at a competitive disadvantage to those who offer lower rates before the fine print.
BTW, I'm not trying to play "stump the lawyer". I'm not that smart. Just thinking out loud on the internet.
BTW, I'm not trying to play "stump the lawyer". I'm not that smart. Just thinking out loud on the internet.
Rennlist Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 931
In New York, the legal precedent concerning an insurer's obligation to compensate for either repairs or diminished value—but not both—is established in the case of Villafranca v. Akhtar, 52 Misc. 3d 878 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2016). This case clarifies that when a vehicle is damaged due to another party's negligence, the injured party is entitled to recover damages based on either the cost of repairs or the diminished market value of the vehicle, whichever amount is less.
The court's decision aligns with the New York Pattern Jury Instructions (PJI) 2:311, which states:New York State Unified Court System+1MYDVAC+1
"If plaintiff's [automobile] was damaged by the defendant's negligence, you will award to the plaintiff as damages the difference between its market value immediately before and immediately after it was damaged, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is less."New York State Unified Court System
This principle ensures that the plaintiff is made whole without receiving a windfall, preventing double recovery for the same loss.
For instance, in the Villafranca case, the plaintiff's vehicle suffered damage due to the defendant's negligence. The defendant's insurance company paid for the repairs, but the plaintiff also sought compensation for the diminished value of the vehicle post-repair. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover both the full cost of repairs and the diminished value; instead, the plaintiff was entitled to the lesser of the two amounts.MYDVAC+2New York State Unified Court System+2New York State Unified Court System+2
This case serves as a key reference in New York for understanding the limitations on recovering damages related to vehicle repairs and diminished value.
RE: THE CASE YOU REFERENCED: There's a 2011 case (Franklin Corp v. Prahler) that limits recovery for diminished value to unique vehicles with potential appreciation, which doesn't apply to most vehicles.
The court's decision aligns with the New York Pattern Jury Instructions (PJI) 2:311, which states:New York State Unified Court System+1MYDVAC+1
"If plaintiff's [automobile] was damaged by the defendant's negligence, you will award to the plaintiff as damages the difference between its market value immediately before and immediately after it was damaged, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is less."New York State Unified Court System
This principle ensures that the plaintiff is made whole without receiving a windfall, preventing double recovery for the same loss.
For instance, in the Villafranca case, the plaintiff's vehicle suffered damage due to the defendant's negligence. The defendant's insurance company paid for the repairs, but the plaintiff also sought compensation for the diminished value of the vehicle post-repair. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover both the full cost of repairs and the diminished value; instead, the plaintiff was entitled to the lesser of the two amounts.MYDVAC+2New York State Unified Court System+2New York State Unified Court System+2
This case serves as a key reference in New York for understanding the limitations on recovering damages related to vehicle repairs and diminished value.
RE: THE CASE YOU REFERENCED: There's a 2011 case (Franklin Corp v. Prahler) that limits recovery for diminished value to unique vehicles with potential appreciation, which doesn't apply to most vehicles.
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 104
Likes: 12
From: Fort Pierce, FL
It is very flawed because given the choices, you can either have your car repaired but not compensated for diminished value or receive the diminished value settlement and have a wrecked car sitting in your driveway. Similar laws existed in other states (Repair or DV but not both) but were overturned on appeal. The curious thing about the case law still existing in New York is that nobody has challenged it on appeal in order to overturn it - despite New Yorkers having a reputation for being aggressive.
Rennlist Member
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 343
From: USA
As evidenced by the DV law in New York state, New York state is owned by the large, multinational corporations, as is the USA, in general. Laws are only passed that benefit the profits of large corporations, and not small business or individuals, despite what the so-called “liberal” individuals in NYC say or think, most of whom work for the same large corporations. Even in Florida, large insurance companies complain that they are not making enough profits, so they bribe the lawmakers and manipulate them via lies (by hiding their profits in other states) in order to get laws passed that make it illegal to recover legal fees when you sue an insurance company for failing to fulfill the insurance contract, which makes it impossible for most individuals to sue insurance companies in Florida.
Rennlist Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 931
It is very flawed because given the choices, you can either have your car repaired but not compensated for diminished value or receive the diminished value settlement and have a wrecked car sitting in your driveway. Similar laws existed in other states (Repair or DV but not both) but were overturned on appeal. The curious thing about the case law still existing in New York is that nobody has challenged it on appeal in order to overturn it - despite New Yorkers having a reputation for being aggressive.
Last edited by Mech33; Aug 29, 2025 at 03:53 PM.
Advanced
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 88
Likes: 22
From: Westchester County, NY
In New York, the legal precedent concerning an insurer's obligation to compensate for either repairs or diminished value—but not both—is established in the case of Villafranca v. Akhtar, 52 Misc. 3d 878 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2016). This case clarifies that when a vehicle is damaged due to another party's negligence, the injured party is entitled to recover damages based on either the cost of repairs or the diminished market value of the vehicle, whichever amount is less.
The court's decision aligns with the New York Pattern Jury Instructions (PJI) 2:311, which states:New York State Unified Court System+1MYDVAC+1
"If plaintiff's [automobile] was damaged by the defendant's negligence, you will award to the plaintiff as damages the difference between its market value immediately before and immediately after it was damaged, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is less."New York State Unified Court System
This principle ensures that the plaintiff is made whole without receiving a windfall, preventing double recovery for the same loss.
The court's decision aligns with the New York Pattern Jury Instructions (PJI) 2:311, which states:New York State Unified Court System+1MYDVAC+1
"If plaintiff's [automobile] was damaged by the defendant's negligence, you will award to the plaintiff as damages the difference between its market value immediately before and immediately after it was damaged, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is less."New York State Unified Court System
This principle ensures that the plaintiff is made whole without receiving a windfall, preventing double recovery for the same loss.
They're not discussing "diminished value" in the same context we are.
Rennlist Stories
The Best Porsche Posts for Porsche Enthusiasts
Stunning Porsche 356A Super GT Speedster Auction Fails to Meet Reserve
Verdad Gallardo
Every Era of 911 Owner Explained in One Sentence
Verdad Gallardo
Thinking of Buying a Porsche? Do These 10 Things First
Joe Kucinski
Pixar Pals Turned Into 1-of-1 Porsches!
Michael S. Palmer
Theon Goes Full Carbon Fiber With Stunning New Build
Verdad Gallardo
Genius Porsche-Themed Gifts That'll Make Any Dad or Grad Smile
Joe Kucinski
10 Used Porsches Are Selling for Way Too Cheap
Joe Kucinski
Tuner Is Converting Porsche 911s Into Shooting Brakes
Verdad Gallardo
This Coachbuilt Creation Is A Modern Take on the Legendary Porsche 917
Verdad Gallardo
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 104
Likes: 12
From: Fort Pierce, FL
I don't believe we're interpreting that Villafranca decision correctly. When they talk about "diminished value" in that case they're referring to the difference between pre-accident value and post-accident value PRIOR TO repair. That's what the reference to "double recovery" is, and that makes sense. The holding of the case and the jury instruction concerns THIS, it doesn't concern the difference between pre-accident value and post-accident value AFTER repair.
They're not discussing "diminished value" in the same context we are.
They're not discussing "diminished value" in the same context we are.
Two important things should be noted. 1) Some insurers do pay DV (Our client was paid $60,000.00 for the diminished value of his Lamborghini) because they are not interested in seeing that case law overturned. 2) This will be the status quo until a New Yorker decides to challenge this unfair law and win a judgement on appeal - thus creating equitable new case law.
Advanced
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 88
Likes: 22
From: Westchester County, NY
Also, keep in mind that a NYC Civil Court decision does not have a lot of precedential value.
Just curious, when you say "Villfranca was your client", your client in what capacity? Are you attorneys?
Last edited by 911Mann; Oct 12, 2025 at 10:02 PM.
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 94
Likes: 23
From: USA
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 104
Likes: 12
From: Fort Pierce, FL
What I mean by "the same context" is that the decision wasn't talking about the difference between pre-accident value and post-accident value AFTER repair, which is what we as Porsche owners are referring to when we say "diminished value"
Also, keep in mind that a NYC Civil Court decision does not have a lot of precedential value.
Just curious, when you say "Villfranca was your client", your client in what capacity? Are you attorneys?
Also, keep in mind that a NYC Civil Court decision does not have a lot of precedential value.
Just curious, when you say "Villfranca was your client", your client in what capacity? Are you attorneys?
We did the DV appraisal (https://autodiminishedvalue.com) for Alfre Villafranca.
One of the issues that Judge Strainiere brought up was that, although the plaintiff lived on Staten Island ( a NYC borough), that we did not include a quote from Porsche of Staten Island. I would have told the judge that we did, in fact, call that dealership but were not able to connect with the used car sales manager. It is our DV methodology to confirm our own opinion of diminished value by obtaining the unbiased opinions of six Porsche dealers in the area. All of the dealers we queried were in the same market area (NYC, Long Island).
Advanced
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 88
Likes: 22
From: Westchester County, NY
One of the issues that Judge Strainiere brought up was that, although the plaintiff lived on Staten Island ( a NYC borough), that we did not include a quote from Porsche of Staten Island. I would have told the judge that we did, in fact, call that dealership but were not able to connect with the used car sales manager. It is our DV methodology to confirm our own opinion of diminished value by obtaining the unbiased opinions of six Porsche dealers in the area. All of the dealers we queried were in the same market area (NYC, Long Island).
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 104
Likes: 12
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Porsche Diminished Value
New York is a different animal. Until someone steps up to challenge that case law, the situation will not improve. I am from North Jersey and spent many years working as an appraiser in the five boroughs. It surprises me that New Yorkers, who are seen as aggressive and opportunistic by nature, are the ones who have simply laid down and allowed insurers to walk all over them.