Diminshed Value Claim against City

[Zachary]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FLORIDA
Here in Florida, which I believe allows for Diminished Value claims, my wive's parked vehicle was hit by the police during a chase causing $3,700 damage to her car valued at $17,500 per NADA Clean Retail book value.
City is self insured and uses 3rd party adminstrator who offered $680 (using rule 17C formula they say they got from their legal counsel years ago) and asked that I provide them another formula if I was not in agreement.
So I hired a local auto DV expert who says the car has a post accident value of $11,700 relfecting a DV loss of $5,700 and CarMax then offered us $10,000which is $4,300 under the NADA Clean Trade-In value, noting the recent accident.
Even after providing the City's 3rd party Adminstrator these documents showing $5,700 and $4,300 loss of value, they won't budge off their original $680 offer.
Any advice? And can I sue the City? Was told that you can't go after the City in matters like this, even if they are responsible?
Thanks for any help.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[ecmst12]

You can sue the city, but not without a lawyer, and you will probably have a hard time finding a lawyer who would go NEAR such a case. So long as your vehicle was repaired to its pre-accident condition or close to it, I personally would suggest letting it go. It would cost you more to pursue it then you could ever hope to recover.

 

[Zachary]

Would like to make sure I understand....So filing in Small Claims Court is not allowed because the City would be the defendant and a City/Police can only be sued through a lawyer? Thx

 

[ecmst12]

Yes, the city's lawyers would not allow a suit to proceed in small claims court, they would move it to higher court where a lawyer can represent them.

 

[HappyWanderer]

While I don't want to speak for ecmst12, I don't think that's what she means. It's just that suing the government is not as simple as suing a guy down the street and it would take a lawyer or a lot of time to figure out what to do.

First, you must ask the government if you can sue them. You have a very strict time limit. You say (on the official form in the official way) I think you owe me money. They look at your claim and tell you there are complex issues involving facts, law and circumstances and we deny your claim. Then, based on a tort claims act of the state, you can sue for certain things. This is just the first step of governmental immunity.

Then, you can't sue the government, you need to sue a person. The government will defend with an attorney as the person in this case was working for them at the time. Then you have to get over certain protections in the tort claim act in which some states specifically exclude things like diminished value claims. (I don't know FL-you should look it up.)

Then you have to do discovery on what was happening and why it was happening and what governmental protections are available for emergency responses. Why is the government at fault? Should the bad guy be responsible? Isn't there a societal interest for an officer to try hard to catch bad guys? Is it negligence in that trying hard to hit something?

The rules are not the same as for you and me not only because it is the government, but also because it was doing emergency actions for the people. One defense to tortious behavior is defense of others. There are others which may apply.

That is just the start and the bottom line you have a lot of work to do to even begin to make a claim. The government will remove the case from small claims based on the tort act or simple removal statutes and you will be in grown up court pretty quick. That's why you need a lawyer. Because you don't have the time or inclination to do the study required to be successful there. This is not something where you will step in front of the judge and say my car was parked and the cop hit it, the judge bangs his gavel and you walk out with a check. This is litigation with an entity who has lawyers already hired and skilled in just this type of thing.

 

[ecmst12]

Well yes there is all that stuff too but I was kind of in a hurry and didn't have time to go into all that

 

[HappyWanderer]

I kinda thought it wasn't because of what he said.

 

[Zachary]

Thanks for all the input.
Have been told locally that the City(s) here in Florida have some type of automatic "arbitration" process for those seeeking recovery of damages, and in some cases, the local municipality offers bookelts on how to go about it.
Will report back.

 

[JETX]

Here in Florida, which I believe allows for Diminished Value claims

You have NO claim, since your belief is NOT correct.
The Florida Supreme Court in Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Insurance Co., 819 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002) upheld both a lower court and appellate court ruling that a properly repaired vehicle does not lose value.

 

[HappyWanderer]

While I am still uncertain if the tort claims act would allow recovery on diminished value claims, I think I disagree with JETX on our facts. I think the case cited had to do with the contractual relationship between an insurance company and it's insured and was based on contract law. I don't think it would apply to a third party. Here we have a tort claim and I think McHale v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 409 So.2d 238 (1982) would be a better choice.

 

[JETX]

Tort law has NOTHING to do with this.

tort
n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well.

Florida Statute:
768.28 Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification; risk management programs.--

(1) In accordance with s. 13, Art. X of the State Constitution, the state, for itself and for its agencies or subdivisions, hereby waives sovereign immunity for liability for torts, but only to the extent specified in this act. Actions at law against the state or any of its agencies or subdivisions to recover damages in tort for money damages against the state or its agencies or subdivisions for injury or loss of property, personal injury, or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency or subdivision while acting within the scope of the employee's office or employment under circumstances in which the state or such agency or subdivision, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant, in accordance with the general laws of this state, may be prosecuted subject to the limitations specified in this act. Any such action may be brought in the county where the property in litigation is located or, if the affected agency or subdivision has an office in such county for the transaction of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued. However, any such action against a state university board of trustees shall be brought in the county in which that university's main campus is located or in the county in which the cause of action accrued if the university maintains therein a substantial presence for the transaction of its customary business.

 

[HappyWanderer]

The only claim the OP has is in tort. I think the (potential) tort is...negligence. The cop was negligent in his driving where it hit the OP's (or wife's) parked car.

I was nice before, because you weren't rude in your post. Still, you're being appropriate in discussing a matter so I'll respond in kind. I disagree.

The OP has a claim in tort (not contract) with the city. He should be compensated for his loss. If he went to his own insurance company, they would have a duty to repair the vehicle. They would not have to pay the "diminished value" based on the case you cited. However, the OP is not arguing with his insurance company, he's arguing with the one who caused the damage. By the case I cited, he has a right to claim diminished value. (I still am uncertain to if he can on the facts here--but that does not seem the disagreement.)

Tort has EVERYTHING to do with this. What do you think the OP is claiming? What do you think anyone who's parked car has been hit can claim?

 

[ecmst12]

It sounds like the court ruled NOT that the company had no contractual obligation to reimburse diminished value because the contract didn't cover it. The court ruled that there WAS NO DAMAGE, there was no diminished value, once the vehicle was properly repaired.

Which is crap, of course, but if that ruling is broadly adopted, it could mean that the state does not recognize the existence of diminished value damages.

 

[HappyWanderer]

I appreciate your opinion ecmst12, but search the literature on the case cited by JETX. You'll find substantive disagreement on if diminished value is appropriate to a third party claim.

That's one reason why I'm being polite. There is some disagreement. Still, case law seems clear.

We can argue, but it's going to be a technical one. General claims won't cut it.

 

[ecmst12]

And it would cost WAY more to litigate then OP could ever hope to recover....so in the end he may have to just take the $680 and be glad about it. Even if he has a case, lawyers don't generally take property damage cases on contingency.