First-party claims recognized by the state Supreme Court
Georgia
Yes. Georgia courts allow an owner to recover a repaired vehicle's lost value from the at-fault driver, and under State Farm v. Mabry (2001) insurers whose auto policies promise to pay for 'loss' must assess and pay diminished value on their own policyholders' physical-damage claims. The amount is still disputed case by case; no formula, including the insurer-favored '17(c)' method, has been endorsed by the state.
Georgia cases and sources →Statutory appraisal process for disputed diminished value
North Carolina
North Carolina measures vehicle damage as the drop in fair market value from just before to just after the accident. Owners regularly recover diminished value from at-fault drivers. By statute, a liability policy must offer an appraisal process when the claimant and insurer disagree on diminished value by more than $2,000 or 25%. Whether your own collision coverage must pay diminished value has not been clearly decided.
North Carolina cases and sources →State Supreme Court decision in January 2026
Connecticut
Yes, against the at-fault driver. Connecticut's Supreme Court confirmed in January 2026 that an owner can recover diminution in value even after the vehicle is repaired. A claim against your own insurer usually is not covered, because standard policies pay repair cost or actual cash value and many exclude diminished value. Negligence suits generally must be filed within two years.
Connecticut cases and sources →Standard-policy rules decided by recent appellate cases
Massachusetts
It is limited. The 2016 standard Massachusetts auto policy excludes 'decreased value' from the property damage it pays to others, so the at-fault driver's insurer generally will not pay. The at-fault driver may still be personally liable in tort, but only with individualized proof. Your own collision coverage does not pay diminished value under the standard policy.
Massachusetts cases and sources →No-fault state with a capped “mini-tort”
Michigan
Only in a limited way. Michigan's no-fault law abolishes most lawsuits against at-fault drivers for vehicle damage. What remains is the 'mini-tort': up to $3,000 (for accidents after July 1, 2020) for vehicle damage your insurance does not cover, usually in small claims court. Diminished value may fit within that cap, but no appellate ruling confirming this was found.
Michigan cases and sources →Repair cost or lost value, not both
Tennessee
Tennessee courts measure car damage either by reasonable repair cost or, if repairs cannot substantially restore the car's function, appearance and value, by the drop in market value from just before to just after the crash. The Court of Appeals has said an owner cannot collect both repair costs and post-repair lost value. Claims against your own insurer under a standard collision policy were rejected in 2002.
Tennessee cases and sources →Courts are skeptical once repairs are complete
New York
Recovery of diminished value in New York is limited. Appellate courts apply a 'lesser of' rule: repair cost or the before-and-after drop in value, whichever is less. If repairs fully restored the car, reduced resale value from its accident history generally is not recoverable. Narrow exceptions exist, for example a collector car that had gained value. No controlling ruling was found on claims against your own insurer.
New York cases and sources →Supreme Court rulings on both sides of the question
Texas
In Texas, an owner whose car was damaged by another driver can seek lost market value from that driver or their liability insurer; the Texas Department of Insurance says this can apply even after complete repairs. Under the standard Texas personal auto policy, your own insurer does not owe diminished value for a fully and adequately repaired car (Schaefer, 2003), though uninsured/underinsured motorist claims may differ.
Texas cases and sources →Policy-language cases and the “stigma” distinction
Washington
Washington is one of the more favorable states. Courts measure damage to a car by its before-and-after market value, and a 2022 published appellate decision allowed a claim for value lost after professional repairs. In Moeller v. Farmers (2011) the Supreme Court held that particular auto policy language covered diminished value, but results depend on each policy's wording and on proving real physical loss, not mere stigma.
Washington cases and sources →Regulator bulletin on uninsured-motorist coverage
Maryland
Yes against an at-fault driver: Maryland appellate courts allow recovery of lost market value on top of repair costs when proven. Your own collision coverage depends on the policy wording, but the insurance regulator requires uninsured/underinsured motorist property-damage coverage to include proven diminished value. Main caveat: Maryland's contributory negligence rule can bar recovery if you were even slightly at fault.
Maryland cases and sources →Attorney-fee statute for small property-damage claims
Oregon
Yes against the at-fault driver: Oregon cases have long measured vehicle damage as the drop in value, and ORS 20.080 can add attorney fees for claims up to $10,000. Against your own insurer, it depends on the policy. Gonzales v. Farmers (2008) required payment where a policy's 'repair' promise was not met, but insurers may exclude diminished value, and at least one major current Oregon policy form does.
Oregon cases and sources →Recent changes to deadlines and fault rules
Louisiana
Yes, against the at-fault driver. Louisiana appellate courts have long allowed diminished value on top of repair costs, but only with individual proof such as an expert appraisal; it is not presumed. Claims under your own collision coverage have been rejected where the policy promises to 'repair or replace'. Uninsured owners and drivers cannot recover the first $100,000 of property damage.
Louisiana cases and sources →
