Washington
Diminished Value Overview
In Washington, 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, Washington 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. Washington recognizes diminished value claims when the loss is properly documented and presented.
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
Washington 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 Washington exclude diminished value, but uninsured motorist property damage (UMPD) coverage may apply if you carry it.
04
Small Claims Court Limit
Washington small claims court allows diminished value claims up to $10,000.
Washington Diminished Value Law
Washington courts recognize that damage to personal property is measured by the loss in market value caused by the injury. When a vehicle is damaged due to another party’s negligence, the proper measure of damages is the difference between the vehicle’s fair market value immediately before the loss and its value after the loss. Repair costs may be considered as evidence of damage, but they do not limit recovery when repairs fail to restore the vehicle’s pre loss market value. As a result, when a repaired vehicle remains worth less than it was before the accident, the remaining loss in value is recoverable as part of a third party property damage claim.
McCurdy v. Union Pacific R.R., 68 Wash. 2d 457 (1966)
The Washington Supreme Court held that the proper measure of damage to personal property is the difference in market value immediately before and immediately after the injury. The court explained that while the reasonable cost of repairs may be considered in determining damages, repair costs are not exclusive and do not control where they fail to fully compensate for the loss in value. This decision establishes that damages are based on actual market loss, not merely the expense of repairs.
Sheridan v. General Electric Co., 3 Wash. App. 669 (1970)
The Washington Court of Appeals reaffirmed that damages must compensate an injured party for the actual loss in value suffered. The court made clear that recovery is not limited to repair costs alone when those repairs do not restore the property to its pre injury value. Where a loss in market value remains after repairs, that loss represents real economic damage that is compensable under Washington law.