Pennsylvania
Diminished Value Overview
In Pennsylvania, 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, Pennsylvania 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. Pennsylvania recognizes diminished value claims when the loss is properly documented.
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
Pennsylvania allows two 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 Pennsylvania do not cover diminished value, and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage generally does not apply to diminished value claims.
04
Small Claims Court Limit
Pennsylvania small claims court allows diminished value claims up to $12,000.
Pennsylvania Diminished Value Law
Pennsylvania law recognizes that when a vehicle is damaged by another party’s negligence, the injured owner is entitled to be made whole. When repairs do not fully restore a vehicle to its pre loss market value, recovery of the remaining diminution in value is permitted as part of a third party property damage claim.
Holt v. Pariser, 161 Pa. Super. 315, 54 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1947)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court adopted the measure of damages set forth in the Restatement of Torts for harm to personal property. The court held that when property is damaged but not totally destroyed, damages include either the difference between the value of the property immediately before and after the loss or, where appropriate, the reasonable cost of repair with due allowance for any remaining difference in value after repairs. The court recognized that repair costs alone do not fully compensate the injured party when a loss in market value remains.