Vermont
Diminished Value Overview
In Vermont, 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, Vermont 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. Vermont 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
Vermont allows three 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 Vermont exclude diminished value, but uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD) coverage may apply if you carry it.
04
Small Claims Court Limit
Vermont small claims court allows diminished value claims up to $5,000.
Vermont Diminished Value Law
Vermont courts recognize that damage to a vehicle caused by another party’s negligence may result in a loss of market value that is not eliminated by repairs alone. When a vehicle is repaired but remains worth less than it was before the accident, the resulting diminution in value may be recovered as part of a property damage claim.
Chase v. Hoosac Tunnel & W.R. Co., 85 Vt. 60 (1911)
The court recognized that damages to personal property include compensation for the actual economic loss sustained. When injury results in a measurable reduction in value, recovery is not confined to physical repair costs but extends to the full loss in market value attributable to the damage.
Collins v. Fogg, 110 Vt. 465 (1939)
Vermont courts have long held that damages are not limited to the cost of repairs alone. Evidence of the vehicle’s value as repaired, compared to its value before the accident, may be considered to establish the remaining depreciation caused by the injury.
Purington v. Newton, 114 Vt. 490 (1946)
The court explained that evidence of reasonable repair costs is admissible in determining damages, but repairs do not control the measure of loss where the vehicle’s value remains diminished. When repairs fail to restore the automobile to its former market value, the loss in value is properly considered in awarding damages.
Kinney v. Cloutier, 125 Vt. 109 (1965)
The Vermont Supreme Court reaffirmed that the usual measure of damages to an automobile is the difference between its market value immediately before the accident and its market value immediately afterward. The court recognized that depreciation resulting from the injury is a compensable element of damages when proven.