Plaintiff’s Claim for Property Damage to Vehicle Limited to Vehicle’s Market Value

Plaintiff Aaron Adena was involved in a motor vehicle accident with defendant Joseph Cupoli in which he suffered no injuries but his vehicle sustained extensive damage. Plaintiff’s insurance carrier, MetLife Auto & Home (MetLife) declared plaintiff’s vehicle a total loss and paid him for its actual cash value plus the cost of a rental car. In Adena v. Cupoli, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1006 (App. Div. April 25, 2017), the plaintiff contended that the defendant should pay him for the additional costs for him to purchase a new vehicle.

MetLife paid the plaintiff $11,277.21 for the cash value of his vehicle plus $270 for fees incurred in renting a substitute vehicle. Plaintiff incurred no out of pocket expenses for towing or storage.

MetLife sent a subrogation demand to defendant’s insurance carrier, demanding reimbursement for the monies it paid to plaintiff. The defendant’s carrier paid MetLife in full.

However, plaintiff filed a complaint in Special Civil Part for $4,624.08, consisting of $259.58 for car rental fees, $2,430 for the purchase of a new vehicle, $230 for the registration and license plates for the new vehicle, $197.90 for floor mats for the new vehicle, and $1,560 to pay off the balance of his car loan for the damaged vehicle.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was paid in full and was entitled to no additional monies. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Division noted that “the measure of damages for the destruction of an automobile is the market value at the time of the loss.” A plaintiff would be entitled to recover reasonable out of pocket expenses for towing, storage, and rental for a substitute vehicle. However, the Court noted that the plaintiff already received the market value for his destroyed vehicle plus the rental cost of a substitute vehicle. Hence, the plaintiff’s property damage claim was paid in full and he was not entitled to any additional expenses. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint.

Tags: motion, Property damage, reimbursement