Rhode Island
Diminished Value Overview
In Rhode Island, 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, Rhode Island 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. Rhode Island 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
Rhode Island allows ten 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 Rhode Island exclude diminished value, but uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD) coverage may apply if you carry it.
04
Small Claims Court Limit
Rhode Island small claims court allows diminished value claims up to $5,000.
Rhode Island Diminished Value Law
Rhode Island courts apply the general principle that a person whose personal property is damaged by another party’s negligence is entitled to recover the full measure of their loss. When repairs do not fully restore property to its pre loss fair market value, damages are measured by the difference between the property’s value immediately before and immediately after the damage. This measure permits recovery for remaining loss in value as part of a property damage claim.
DeSpirito v. Bristol County Water Co., 102 R.I. 50, 53 (R.I. 1967)
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the proper measure of damages for injury to personal property is the difference between the fair market value of the property before the damage and its fair market value after the damage. The court reaffirmed that testimony establishing this before and after valuation is the appropriate method of proving damages where property is damaged but not totally destroyed.
Jackson v. Choquette Co., 78 R.I. 164 (R.I. 1951)
The court similarly recognized that damages for injury to personal property are based on the loss in fair market value caused by the damage. Where a loss in value remains after repair, recovery is not limited to repair costs alone, as limiting damages in that manner would fail to fully compensate the injured party.