This chart is general information, not legal advice. Case law shifts and policy language matters — for legal questions about your claim, consult an attorney in your state. Rule of thumb: third-party claims (the other driver was at fault) are recoverable in most states; first-party claims (against your own insurer) are barred almost everywhere — Georgia is the standout exception.
How to read this chart
- Third party — you're claiming against the at-fault driver (their liability insurer pays). This is where most DV money is recovered.
- First party — you're claiming against your own collision coverage. Most policies and courts say no.
- Recoverable Limited Not recoverable Unsettled
| State | First party (your own insurer) | Third party (at-fault driver's insurer) |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Not recoverable Insurer owes repairs, not lost value (Pritchett, 2002). | Unsettled No decisions allowing post-repair DV. |
| Alaska | Unsettled No auto-claim decisions on point. | Unsettled Courts have acknowledged the theory (Willett, 1992) without squarely adopting it. |
| Arizona | Not recoverable Johnson v. State Farm (1988). | Recoverable Repair cost plus proven residual DV (Farmers v. R.B.L., 1983; Oliver, 2011). |
| Arkansas | Not recoverable Most policies exclude it. | Recoverable Post-repair residual DV recoverable (MFA Ins., 1977). |
| California | Not recoverable Proper repair discharges the policy (Ray, 1988; Foster, 2018). | Limited Law unsettled, but the standard jury instruction (CACI 3903J) permits repair cost + residual loss of value. |
| Colorado | Limited "Like kind and quality" must restore function and value (Hyden, 2000). | Recoverable Diminution is an element of damages (Trujillo, 1948). |
| Connecticut | Not recoverable Standard policies don't cover lost market value. | Recoverable Repair costs plus residual DV (Littlejohn, 1944, and a long line since). |
| Delaware | Not recoverable "Repair or replace" excludes DV (O'Brien, 2001). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| District of Columbia | Unsettled No insurance-coverage decisions. | Recoverable Repair cost + residual DV, capped at gross diminution (Helton, 2005). |
| Florida | Not recoverable First-rate repair ends the obligation (Siegle, 2002). | Recoverable Repairs + DV is the ordinary measure; no sale required to prove it (McHale, 1982). |
| Georgia | Recoverable The national exception: insurers must assess and pay DV even if you don't ask (Mabry, 2001). | Recoverable Repairs + permanent impairment, with loss of use (Perma Ad Ideas, 1981). |
| Hawaii | Unsettled No auto cases. | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| Idaho | Unsettled No auto cases. | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| Illinois | Not recoverable "Like kind and quality" doesn't include intangible lost value (Sims, 2006). | Recoverable Repair cost + difference in post-repair value (Trailmobile, 1973). |
| Indiana | Not recoverable Allgood v. Meridian (2005). | Recoverable Repair + residual DV with proof of post-repair value (Wiese-GMC, 1993; Shield Global, 2020). |
| Iowa | Limited DV policy exclusions rescinded by regulation (2004) — outcome turns on your policy. | Recoverable With expert testimony (Hawkeye Motors, 1995). |
| Kansas | Limited Some commercial coverage found (Boyd Motors, 1989). | Recoverable Repair + remaining difference in value (Broadie, 1923; Venable, 1974). |
| Kentucky | Not recoverable Insurer restores condition, not value (Tomes, 1991). | Recoverable Post-repair value may include stigma (Muncie, 2018). |
| Louisiana | Not recoverable Payment for full repair satisfies the policy (Campbell, 2001). | Recoverable By statute — La. R.S. 9:2800.17 (2010). |
| Maine | Not recoverable DV is "a loss that cannot be repaired" (Hall, 2002). | Unsettled No decisions allowing post-repair DV. |
| Maryland | Unsettled No auto-policy decisions. | Recoverable Repairs + proven post-repair DV (Fred Frederick, 1971). |
| Massachusetts | Not recoverable Division of Insurance: standard policy doesn't cover it. | Limited Recoverable in tort (McGilloway, 2021), but the 2016 standard policy language excludes it (Merullo, 2022) — the policy year matters. |
| Michigan | Not recoverable Driscoll (2002). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| Minnesota | Limited Old authority favors paying uncompensated depreciation (Ciresi, 1932). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| Mississippi | Recoverable Remaining loss in value adds to repair cost (Potomac, 1952). | Recoverable Repair + remaining diminution (Ishee, 1980). |
| Missouri | Limited Unambiguous exclusions hold (Lupo, 2002), but incomplete repairs open the door (Williams, 1957). | Recoverable Repair cost + post-repair difference in value (Rook, 1977). |
| Montana | Limited Restoration isn't complete if value is still diminished (Eby, 1962). | Unsettled Expressly left open (Hop v. Safeco, 2011). |
| Nebraska | Not recoverable Lost market value only when the vehicle isn't repaired (Chlopek, 1986). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| Nevada | Not recoverable Regulation requires restoring condition only (NAC 686A.680). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| New Hampshire | Unsettled No decisions on point. | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| New Jersey | Limited Turns on policy language; clear exclusions hold (Kieffer, 2011). | Recoverable "Scarlet letter" DV claims recognized (Panter, 2019). |
| New Mexico | Not recoverable Davis (2006). | Limited Lesser of repair + depreciation, or reduction in market value (Hubbard, 1998). |
| New York | Limited Depends on policy language (Edwards, 1922). | Limited Recoverable for new, unique, or appreciating vehicles (Franklin Corp., 2011; Rosenfield, 1988). |
| North Carolina | Recoverable Statutory appraisal procedure for first-party DV disputes (N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(d)(1)). | Recoverable Before/after value is the standard measure; DV claims survive releases if asserted within 30 days of repair (11 NCAC 4.0421(5)). |
| North Dakota | Unsettled No decisions on point. | Limited Repair cost is the presumed measure; value difference when repair is impracticable (N.D.C.C. § 32-03-09.1). |
| Ohio | Not recoverable Nationwide v. Shah (2004). | Recoverable Repair + residual DV, capped at gross diminution (Rakich, 2007). |
| Oklahoma | Not recoverable Before/after value is the measure, not a DV add-on (Diffie, 1954). | Recoverable Repairs + post-repair diminution (Brennen v. Aston, 2003). |
| Oregon | Recoverable "Repair" means restored to pre-loss value — DV owed if it isn't (Gonzales, 2008). | Limited Acknowledged, but proof burden is high (EAM Advertising, 1998). |
| Pennsylvania | Not recoverable Lobozzo (1970); Munoz (1999). | Recoverable Repair cost with allowance for lost value, plus loss of use (Holt, 1947). |
| Rhode Island | Limited "Like kind and quality" held ambiguous — a jury question (Cazabat, 2000). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| South Carolina | Not recoverable Schulmeyer (2003). | Recoverable Repairs + remaining diminution (Newman v. Brown, 1955). |
| South Dakota | Not recoverable Culhane (2005). | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
| Tennessee | Not recoverable Black (2002). | Limited Not definitively recognized; Bloodworth (2007) sets the proof framework if pursued. |
| Texas | Not recoverable Schaefer (2003); TDI Bulletin B-0027-00. | Limited Courts treat repair and value-difference as either/or, but the TDI bulletin says liability insurers may owe third-party lost market value. |
| Utah | Unsettled No decisions on point. | Recoverable Repairs + post-repair depreciation (Metcalf, 1920). |
| Vermont | Recoverable Absent contrary language, policies must pay DV (Insurance Bulletin 164, 2011). | Recoverable Before/after value is the measure (Kinney, 1965). |
| Virginia | Not recoverable Bickel (1965). | Recoverable Repairs + post-repair depreciation (Averett v. Shircliff, 1977). |
| Washington | Recoverable "Repair or replace" coverage includes diminished value (Moeller, 2011). | Recoverable DV recoverable where repair can't fully restore pre-loss condition (Grothe, 2022). |
| West Virginia | Not recoverable No authority for first-party DV per the Insurance Commissioner's office. | Limited Allowed for structurally damaged vehicles of significant value (Ellis v. King, 1990; Brooks, 2014). |
| Wisconsin | Not recoverable Wildin (2001). | Recoverable Repair + lost value if repairs didn't restore pre-injury value (Hellenbrand, 2004). |
| Wyoming | Unsettled No auto cases. | Unsettled No decisions on point. |
State summaries adapted from a 50-state survey compiled by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. (mwl-law.com), last updated April 2026. Case law evolves — verify current status before relying on any entry.
What this means in practice: if the other driver was at fault, you likely have a DV claim worth documenting — and in every state, the claim rises or falls on proof: a signed expert appraisal of your vehicle's pre-loss and post-repair value. That's exactly what our flat-fee DV report provides.