Minnesota
Diminished Value Overview
In Minnesota, a vehicle involved in a not at fault accident may lose market value even after repairs are completed. When another driver is responsible for the accident, Minnesota law allows you to pursue compensation for that loss in value from the at fault driver’s insurance company as part of your property damage claim. Minnesota recognizes diminished value claims when you file within the applicable time limit.
Save Time
Higher Payouts
Market Accuracy
Insurance Ready
WORKING TOGETHER
We team up with you to provide clear, accurate diminished value guidance and documentation you can confidently use with insurers or in court.
01
Statute of Limitations
Minnesota allows six years from the date of the accident to pursue a diminished value claim.
02
Third-Party Claims
Diminished value claims can be pursued against the at fault driver’s liability insurance when another driver caused the accident.
03
First-Party and Uninsured Motorist
Most first party policies in Minnesota do not cover diminished value, and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage does not apply to diminished value claims.
04
Small Claims Court Limit
Minnesota small claims court allows diminished value claims up to $15,000.
Minnesota Diminished Value Law
Minnesota courts recognize that a vehicle does not automatically return to its original market value simply because it has been repaired. When a vehicle is damaged due to another party’s negligence, any resulting loss in market value may be recovered as part of a third party property damage claim.
Rinkel v. Lee’s Plumbing & Heating Co., 257 Minn. 14, 99 N.W.2d 779 (1959)
The court reaffirmed that when repairs fail to restore damaged property to its pre loss value, the owner is entitled to recover the remaining diminution in market value, provided the total recovery does not exceed the applicable measure of damages.
O’Connor v. Schwartz, 304 Minn. 155, 229 N.W.2d 511 (1975)
The Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed that damages to personal property may be measured by the difference between the property’s fair market value immediately before and after the damage. The court recognized that repair costs alone may be insufficient where repairs do not fully restore the property’s value.