ONLY NEEDED TO PAY VEHICLE'S “REASONABLE MARKET VALUE”
After she was involved in an accident which totaled her vehicle, TH was reimbursed by her insurer for the car’s market value at the time of the accident. But since the loan she had taken out against the vehicle exceeded her insurance recovery by about $4000, she filed a small claims case against RE & WMN (the owner and driver of the vehicle that hit her) seeking to recoup those monies.
After the Kings County Civil Court found in her favor, the defendants appealed. And on its review of the record, the Appellate Term, Second Department, thought the court below had erred.
The AT2 was of the view that the defendants were only liable of the car’s “reasonable market value immediately before destruction,” and not “for consequences that [were] remote and indirect.”
Since it did not think the car’s loan value was the proper measure of damages, as that sum “did not fall within the zone of foreseeability” for which the defendants could be found liable, the AT2 reversed the underlying determination and dismissed the case.
Would you call that acceptable damage?
# # #
DECISION