Insurance companies have been pushing the false narrative that owners cannot recover for their vehicles’ diminution in value after an accident based on Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Bloodworth (“Geico”), No. M2003-02986-COA-R10-CV, 2007 WL 1966022 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). But Geico actually ruled (1) that diminution could be recovered after repairs for UM/UIM claims and (2) that this issue “is a question of fact to be determined by the jury or factfinder.” In Geico, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled: “We do not disagree that the loss in value, correctly proved, may be an element of recoverable damages. However, as explained below, longstanding law in Tennessee on the appropriate measure of damages limits the award of that element to specific situations where the required proof is made.” Id. at *40. “[T]he plaintiff must prove that the property is not capable of repair that will substantially restore its condition, appearance, and value or that repairs made did not substantially restore them.” Id. at *42. “[T]he proper measure is the pre-accident and post-accident difference in fair market value.” Id. at *41. “[T]he initial question to be asked is whether repair can or did substantially restore the property to its pre-accident value, function and appearance. These are fact-specific inquiries.” Id. at *42 (bold in original; bold and italics added for emphasis). “The question of whether the damaged property is capable of restoration, or has been restored, to substantially the same value and condition as it had before the accident is a question of fact to be determined by the jury or factfinder.” Id. at *42.

In Geico, two named plaintiffs brought a putative class action based on Geico’s failure to pay diminution in value for repaired vehicles on uninsured or underinsured (collectively, “UIM”) claims. Id. at *1. The putative class included “insureds whose claims involved ‘hit and run’ accidents.” Id. The trial court certified the proposed class, and Geico appealed. Id. at *1 and n.3. In a lengthy opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court had improperly certified the class under Rule 23’s four elements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and a fair and adequate class representative. Id. at *2-3, 2-52. As part of the reversal on the commonality element, the Geico court noted the class’s insufficient method for proving damages: “The class members do not, apparently, intend to prove either the pre-accident value or the post-accident value of any insured vehicle. Instead, they seek to use proof unrelated to either value.” Id. at *42. The plaintiffs intended only “to provide generalized proof.” Id. at *42. The class action mechanism was not a proper method for proving the unique diminution in value for each vehicle. The Geico court concluded, “We cannot say that, based on the record before us, the plaintiff has shown that she can prove that each class member actually suffered the injury of diminished value through the classwide proof she has described.” Id. at *47.

Altogether, owners have a right under Geico to recover diminution in value for UM/UIM claims even after their vehicles have been repaired.