Motor Vehicle Law: For purposes of determining diminution of value in a motor vehicle, court holds that offers to purchase the vehicle made by experienced vehicle dealers with knowledge of the accident history, mileage, and post-accident repairs is the best evidence

Plaintiff seeks damages for the loss of use and diminution of value of his motor vehicle following an automobile accident. Plaintiff was the owner of a vehicle which he had purchased new and which had been driven approximately 31,000 miles. The vehicle was in an average to good condition, having been regularly maintained and serviced by the plaintiff. However, on October 6, 2021, plaintiff’s vehicle sustained damage when it was rear-ended by the defendant’s vehicle.

Plaintiff’s Vehicle Damage and Diminution of Value

On the issue of the diminished value of the plaintiff’s vehicle post-repair, the plaintiff presented testimony of Robert Collins of Wreck Check Assessments of Boston, and the defendant presented Glenn Hogan of Duhamel & Duhamel, LLC. The evidence presented by both parties agrees that the pre-loss value of the plaintiff’s vehicle was $33,050.00. When determining the diminution in value, Collins and Hogan used separate and different approaches. Collins’ approach led him to opine that the loss in value to plaintiff’s vehicle can reasonably be expected to be 23.6% of its pre-accident value, or $7,799.80. In Hogan’s opinion, the diminished value for the plaintiff’s vehicle was $1,700.00.

Defendant has conceded liability for the accident, and the only issue remaining pertains to damages, more specifically, the diminution of value of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Connecticut courts recognize a cause of action for diminution of value of a vehicle following an accident. The proper statement of the measure of damages is the difference in value between the property before and after the loss, with interest from the date of loss.

The more complicated issue presented to the court is the appropriate means by which to ascribe a diminished value of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The court looks to other Superior Courts that have spoken on the methodology used to compare vehicles and determine the diminution of value of a vehicle. The court recognizes that statistical rigor is not required or likely to be obtained. However, in any analysis involving a comparison of a specific situation to others, there is concern as to what, if any, parameters are used in selecting a “comparable” piece of property.

Such an approach leaves open, and invites, criticism that the criteria used to select the “comparable vehicle” were result-oriented and designed to reach a predetermined result. With regard to the plaintiff’s expert in this case, part of Collins’ opinion on diminished value comes from an evaluation of purportedly comparable vehicles to the plaintiff’s vehicle. The court finds that the comparable vehicles chosen by Collins are not sufficiently similar to the plaintiff’s vehicle to provide a useful comparison.

Expert Testimony and Diminution in Value Calculations

Furthermore, considering Collins’ comparable vehicle diminution values against the Connecticut dealer values offered also raises the concern that these comparable vehicles were chosen in the kind of result-oriented process that other courts have warned of. When reviewing the defendant’s expert opinion from Hogan, the same flaws are found. Hogan does not perform any independent evaluation beyond merely obtaining diminished value opinions from third parties, averaging them, and rounding the results. Hogan does not know the formulas used by the third parties or how they were applied.

Court’s Analysis and Final Decision

The court ultimately finds that to the extent that the fair market value presumes a desirous buyer and a willing seller, in fair negotiations and under no undue compulsion to make a deal, the evidence presented at trial regarding the value associated with offers to purchase the plaintiff’s vehicle by experienced Connecticut vehicle dealers with knowledge of the accident history, mileage, and post-accident repairs is the best evidence of the post-repair market value of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Those offers to purchase evidenced an average of a 11.2% reduction from the pre-loss value.

Applying that diminution in value to the pre-loss value of the plaintiff’s vehicle, the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a diminished value award of $3,701.60.

Harding v. Spulick, No. CV-22-6025900-S, 2024 WL 4274545 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2024)