We Value Your Privacy

We use cookies for analytics and advertising measurement.

Skip to main content
Legal Guide

Diminished Value Claims After a Car Accident: The Rules by State and How to Prove the Loss

The repairs are finished, the paint looks right, and the car drives the way it did the week before the crash. Then you go to trade it in, the dealer runs the vehicle history report, and the number you are offered is lower than it would be for the same car with a clean record. That gap is inherent diminished value, and across most of the country it is a real element of a property damage claim, separate from the repair bill the insurer already paid and separate from anything on the injury side of the case. This guide covers what the loss is, which of the two possible claims you are making, what each state says about each of them, where the 17c formula came from and why it produces small numbers, and what actually proves the figure you ask for.

Quick answer

Inherent diminished value is the market value a vehicle never gets back after a proper repair, because its accident history now follows it. A claim against the at-fault driver’s insurer is recoverable in 38 of the 51 US jurisdictions, is not recoverable in 3 (Massachusetts, North Dakota and New York), and has no clear rule in 10, on a review of every state completed 2026-09-13. A claim under your own collision coverage is a separate question about policy wording: 4 jurisdictions allow it, 13 do not, 12 make it depend on the policy, and 22 have no clear rule. No state statute, high court or insurance regulator has adopted the 17c formula, so the loss is proven with market evidence: comparable listings, dealer offers, the repair file and an independent appraisal.

What's My Case Worth?

Free · Private · Takes about 2 minutes · No sign-up

Jump to the 51-state chart

By the CaseValue.law Editorial TeamLast updated and source-checked September 13, 2026How we estimate

What diminished value is, and the three kinds of it

Inherent diminished value is the loss in market value a vehicle keeps after it has been properly and completely repaired, for the single reason that it has now been in a crash. Legal texts call the same thing diminution in value, and the two phrases mean one thing: the difference between what the vehicle was worth the moment before the collision and what it is worth once the repair is done. Both phrases appear in the decisions quoted further down this page, and neither describes anything about the quality of the body work.

The loss is real because the record of the crash is public. A vehicle history report puts the accident on the file a dealer and a private buyer both read, and the used-vehicle market prices that record: a car with a reported collision competes against identical cars without one. That is why the loss shows up at trade-in or resale rather than in the repair estimate, and why a vehicle that drives perfectly can still be worth measurably less than it was.

Three different losses travel under the same phrase, and telling them apart decides what you are claiming. Inherent diminished value is the accident-history loss described above and is the subject of this page. Repair-related diminished value is the extra loss left by work that was not done properly, a mismatched finish or a part that was not replaced, and it is really a dispute about the repair. Immediate or pre-repair diminished value is the drop in value between the crash and the repair, which matters mainly when the vehicle is sold or totaled before the work is done.

None of the three is the repair bill. The insurer paying for the body work has paid to put the metal back; it has not paid for the market discount the car carries afterwards. The repair invoice is evidence in a diminished value claim, but it never measures the loss, and an adjuster who says the claim is covered because the repairs were paid is answering a different question.

Two different claims, and why the answers differ

Almost every confusing thing written about diminished value comes from running two separate claims together. They are brought against different parties, they are decided under different bodies of law, and a state can answer yes to one and no to the other. Work out which one is yours before reading any state rule.

Against the at-fault driver (third-party)

This is an ordinary property damage claim, presented to the liability insurer of the driver who caused the crash, and the question it asks is the measure of damages for a damaged vehicle. States answer it in their damages law: California’s official jury instruction CACI No. 3903J tells juries that an owner whose repaired vehicle is still worth less than it was may recover that remaining loss on top of the repair cost, Kentucky’s insurance regulation 806 KAR 12:095 sets the third-party measure as fair market value before the crash minus value after it, and North Carolina’s financial responsibility statute builds an appraisal procedure around exactly that before-and-after difference. Because the duty is the driver’s and not your policy’s, no wording in your own insurance controls it.

Under your own collision coverage (first-party)

This is a contract claim against your own insurer, and the question is what your policy promised. A policy that promises to repair or replace the vehicle, and nothing more, is generally read as owing the repair and not the residual loss in value; a policy read as promising to restore the vehicle to its condition and value before the loss can owe more. That is why regulators answer it the way they do: Idaho’s Department of Insurance tells consumers an insurer is not obliged to pay diminished value unless the policy says so, and Washington’s Office of the Insurance Commissioner tells drivers the claim is normally made against the at-fault driver’s insurer and that some policies do not cover it.

Georgia: the leading yes on your own policy

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mabry (2001) the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a trial court order in a policyholder class action, on the ground that Georgia has been consistent in reading the physical damage coverage of an auto policy to require that the insured be made whole. The order it affirmed required the insurer to evaluate first-party physical damage claims for diminution in value by an appropriate methodology and procedure, and then either to pay it or to deny it. Georgia is one of only four jurisdictions the review records as allowing the first-party claim.

Texas: the leading no on your own policy, and a regulator on the other claim

In American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schaefer (2003) the Supreme Court of Texas held that the standard Texas auto policy does not owe diminished value on a vehicle that has been fully and adequately repaired. The Texas Department of Insurance had already told insurers, in Commissioner’s Bulletin No. B-0027-00, that a liability claim by a third party is a different matter and diminished value may still be owed there. One state, two opposite answers, which is the pattern this page keeps returning to.

New York: a rule that limits both

New York takes a narrower route than either. In Freitas v. Ahmed (2024) the Appellate Division, Fourth Department applied the long-standing rule of Johnson v. Scholz (1949): the owner of an ordinary vehicle recovers either the reasonable cost of repairs or the drop in market value, whichever is less, rather than both. That is why New York is recorded as not allowing an inherent diminished value claim stacked on top of paid repairs.

Why secondary writing gets this wrong

Articles that promise a state-by-state answer usually give one column, which cannot be right, because the two claims are decided by different law. A decision construing a policy says nothing about what an at-fault driver owes, and a jury instruction on damages says nothing about what your own insurer promised. When you read that a state "allows diminished value", check which claim the writer meant, and check the date.

Which states allow a diminished value claim

The chart below records both claims for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, from a review of statutes, high-court and appellate decisions, pattern jury instructions and insurance regulator statements completed on 2026-09-13.

On the third-party claim, against the driver who caused the crash, the answer is yes in 38 of the 51 jurisdictions. The reasoning is usually old and usually the same: a repair that leaves the vehicle worth less than it was has not made the owner whole, so the remaining loss is recoverable with the cost of repair. Pennsylvania has said so since Holt v. Pariser in 1947, New Hampshire since Copadis v. Haymond in 1946, and Utah since Metcalf v. Mellen in 1920. Louisiana has a statute on it, R.S. 9:2800.17, and Maryland’s insurance regulator confirmed in Bulletin 24-8 that the loss is a real element of damages and must be covered by the uninsured motorist property damage coverage the state requires.

Three jurisdictions are recorded as not allowing the third-party claim, each for its own reason. New York applies the lesser-of rule described above. North Dakota is one of the few states with a statute fixing the measure of damages for injured property, N.D. Cent. Code 32-03-09.1, which presumes repair cost plus loss of use. Massachusetts got there in two steps rather than one: Given v. Commerce Insurance (2003), in which the Supreme Judicial Court held the standard collision coverage does not pay the value a repaired car has lost, and Cubberley v. Commerce Insurance (2025), in which the same court held that part 4 of the 2016 standard Massachusetts automobile policy excludes that loss from the at-fault driver’s coverage as well.

Ten jurisdictions have no clear rule on the third-party claim: Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Tennessee. That label means the review found no statute, high-court decision, appellate decision or regulator statement on the question, not that the claim is barred. Michigan is the clearest example of why the label exists: its no-fault act abolishes most tort liability for vehicle damage and leaves a small capped claim against the at-fault driver, and no Michigan authority says whether this loss can be recovered inside that cap.

The first-party claim, under your own collision coverage, is the harder one, and the split shows it: 4 jurisdictions allow it, 13 do not, 12 make it turn on the policy wording, and 22 have no clear rule. Georgia allows it under Mabry. Mississippi allows it under Potomac Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson (1952). Minnesota is recorded as allowing it on Ciresi v. Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Co., a 1932 decision construing an older policy form that no modern Minnesota court has revisited, which is a real caveat rather than a footnote. The 13 that do not allow it are mostly repair-or-replace cases, and most of them were decided in the years around and after Mabry: Texas (Schaefer, 2003), Delaware (O’Brien v. Progressive Northern, 2001), South Carolina (Schulmeyer v. State Farm, 2003), South Dakota (Culhane v. Western National Mutual, 2005) and Indiana (Allgood v. Meridian Security, 2005), which also stated that Indiana’s tort measure against an at-fault driver does include the loss. Virginia’s answer is much older, from Bickel v. Nationwide Mutual in 1965.

New Mexico belongs with the states that do not allow the first-party claim: Davis v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Arizona (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) followed the repair-or-replace cases by name, and the New Mexico Supreme Court granted review that year and then quashed it in 2007, leaving the decision standing. One recorded value carries a caveat worth reading before you rely on it. Oregon is recorded as having no clear rule on the first-party claim even though its Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Farmers Insurance in 2008: that case held the promise to repair in the policy before it required the insurer to restore the vehicle’s pre-loss condition and to pay the lost value where repair could not, and expressly noted that nothing stops an insurer from defining repair to exclude the loss. It was about a repair that could not restore the vehicle, not about the accident history a properly repaired car carries.

The twelve policy-dependent jurisdictions, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont and Washington, are the ones where the answer is in your own declarations and endorsements rather than in a case name. Ohio is the plainest illustration: in Fincher v. State Farm (2025) the First District Court of Appeals decided against the driver because her own policy excluded diminished value. Read your policy before you read a state rule.

Every value in the chart is the general rule recorded on the review date, and a licensed attorney in your state is what confirms how it applies to your vehicle and your policy.

Diminished value claims by state: from the at-fault driver and from your own insurer

Whether inherent diminished value is recoverable from the at-fault driver and under the owner’s own collision coverage in every state and D.C., from the CaseValue.law state legal database
StateFrom the at-fault driverFrom your own insurerProperty damage deadline
AlabamaNo clear ruleNoNot specified
AlaskaYesNo clear rule2 years
ArizonaYesNo2 years
ArkansasYesNo clear rule3 years
CaliforniaYesDepends on the policy3 years
ColoradoYesDepends on the policy3 years
ConnecticutYesNo clear rule2 years
DelawareNo clear ruleNo2 years
FloridaYesNoNot specified
GeorgiaYesYes4 years
HawaiiNo clear ruleNo clear rule2 years
IdahoYesDepends on the policy3 years
IllinoisYesDepends on the policy5 years
IndianaYesNo2 years
IowaYesNo clear rule5 years
KansasYesDepends on the policy2 years
KentuckyYesDepends on the policy2 years
LouisianaYesDepends on the policy2 years
MaineNo clear ruleNo6 years
MarylandYesDepends on the policy3 years
MassachusettsNoNo3 years
MichiganNo clear ruleNo clear rule3 years
MinnesotaYesYes6 years
MississippiYesYes3 years
MissouriYesNo5 years
MontanaYesNo clear rule2 years
NebraskaNo clear ruleNo clear rule4 years
NevadaNo clear ruleNo clear rule3 years
New HampshireYesNo clear rule3 years
New JerseyYesDepends on the policy6 years
New MexicoYesNo4 years
New YorkNoNo clear rule3 years
North CarolinaYesNo clear rule3 years
North DakotaNoNo clear rule6 years
OhioYesDepends on the policy2 years
OklahomaYesNo clear rule2 years
OregonYesNo clear rule6 years
PennsylvaniaYesNo clear rule2 years
Rhode IslandNo clear ruleNo clear rule10 years
South CarolinaYesNo3 years
South DakotaNo clear ruleNo6 years
TennesseeNo clear ruleYes3 years
TexasYesNo2 years
UtahYesNo clear rule4 years
VermontYesDepends on the policy3 years
VirginiaYesNo5 years
WashingtonYesDepends on the policy3 years
Washington D.C.YesNo clear rule3 years
West VirginiaYesNo clear rule2 years
WisconsinYesNo clear rule3 years
WyomingYesNo clear rule4 years

"Yes" means an authority in that state lets the owner of a properly repaired vehicle recover the value it still lost, from that source; "No" means an authority says otherwise; "Depends on the policy" means the answer turns on the wording of your particular collision coverage. "No clear rule" means no statute, high-court or appellate decision or insurance regulator statement on the question was found on the review date, 2026-09-13, and never that the claim is barred. The property damage deadline is the state’s limitations period for a negligence claim for damage to a vehicle, read from the statute on the legislature’s own site; in 14 states it differs from the injury deadline on our state pages, and Alabama and Florida read “Not specified” because their statute text did not settle which period governs. Each row is the general rule as recorded, and a licensed attorney in the state is what confirms how it applies to your vehicle and your policy.

See what your own claim is worth

How to read the chart

Two columns, two different claims, plus four things the chart deliberately does not carry.

  • The "from the at-fault driver" column

    "Yes" means the state’s damages law lets the owner of a repaired vehicle recover the value it still lost, on top of the cost of repair, from the driver who caused the crash. "No" means an authority in that state says otherwise. This column is about the other driver’s liability coverage, so nothing in your own policy changes it.

  • The "from your own insurer" column

    "Yes" and "No" record how the state reads standard collision coverage. "Depends on the policy" means the authority in that state makes the answer turn on the wording of the particular policy, so the same driver can win in one state with one insurer and lose in the same state with another. In every jurisdiction, the document that decides this claim is your own policy.

  • "No clear rule" is not "no"

    It means the review found no statute, highest-court decision, appellate decision or insurance regulator statement on that question in that state as of 2026-09-13. Claims are made and paid in those states. It is a statement about the published authority, not about your claim.

  • The property damage deadline column

    A diminished value claim is a property damage claim, and the deadline for property damage is often not the same as the injury deadline our state pages carry. The column is the limitations period for a negligence claim for damage to a vehicle, read from each state’s statute on the legislature’s own site on 2026-09-13; in 14 states it differs from the injury deadline, and two states read “Not specified” because their statute text sets out two periods without saying which governs. The deadlines section below says what to do with the number.

  • No 17c column

    The review looked for a state authority adopting, requiring or rejecting the 17c formula and found all 51 jurisdictions silent. A column of 51 identical cells tells you nothing, so the formula is covered in prose instead.

  • What the chart cannot know

    Your deductible, whether you were partly at fault, whether the vehicle was leased or financed, and the exact endorsements on your policy all move the answer and none of them is a state rule. Take the chart as the starting question, not the finishing one.

The 17c formula: where it came from and what it leaves out

The 17c formula is the calculation insurers most often produce when a diminished value claim is made, and it is worth being precise about what it is. It is a claims-handling method, known in claims practice by the paragraph of the trial court order it was taken from, and a Kansas appellate decision records it as having been "developed by State Farm in a Georgia class action case". That Georgia case is Mabry, in which the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed an order requiring State Farm to evaluate first-party claims for diminution in value by an appropriate methodology and procedure. The Georgia court did not write the formula, did not approve any particular arithmetic, and did not say what an appropriate methodology contains.

As it is commonly written, the formula starts from a base of 10 percent of the vehicle’s pre-accident market value, then multiplies that base by a factor for the severity of the damage and again by a factor for the vehicle’s mileage. That same Kansas decision, Ohlmeier v. Jones (2015), records the Rule 17c test as one "which sets the diminished value loss at 10% of the preaccident value", put forward at trial by the insurer’s witness as an alternative means of calculating the loss.

Its legal status is the part most pages get wrong. The 51-jurisdiction review behind this page looked for any state statute, high-court decision or insurance regulator that had adopted, required or rejected the formula, and found every jurisdiction silent. Two regulators say as much in their own consumer guidance: Virginia’s Bureau of Insurance writes that "Virginia law is silent regarding the issue of diminished value, and there is no method prescribed by law to determine the vehicle’s diminished value", adding that the insurer should consider any credible evidence of the loss, and Florida’s Department of Financial Services writes that "Florida law is silent regarding how a valuation of loss is made concerning diminished value" and that the claimant is responsible for proving the loss. No state accepts the formula, and none has thrown it out. It is an offer, and you can answer it with evidence.

Illustrative example, invented numbers, not a prediction for any vehicle. Take a car with a pre-crash market value of $30,000. A 10 percent base is $3,000. Apply an invented damage factor of one half and the figure is $1,500; apply an invented mileage factor of four tenths and it is $600. Now value the same invented car from the market: comparable vehicles without an accident record are listed at $30,000, three dealers offer $26,400 for yours with the record, and the appraisal puts the loss at $3,600. Two methods, the same car, a six-fold difference, and only one of the two looked at what the vehicle actually sells for.

That gap is not hypothetical. In Ohlmeier the owners claimed diminished value after a crash; the 17c calculation offered at trial produced $1,273.20 while the owners’ market evidence supported $4,185; the trial court awarded $4,185 and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed that award as supported by the evidence. The opinion neither adopts nor rejects the formula. It simply shows a court weighing a formula against market evidence and preferring the evidence.

Why the formula produces small numbers

The three structural problems are visible in the arithmetic itself, and you do not need an expert to point them out in a letter. The base is a flat ceiling of 10 percent of the vehicle’s value, chosen in advance and tied to no evidence about this car, this damage or this market, so the answer is capped before the calculation starts. Every step after the base is a multiplier of one or less, which means each one can only make the number smaller, never larger, and a factor of zero ends the calculation at nothing. And nothing anywhere in it looks at a comparable sale, a dealer offer or a listing, which is the only information a buyer actually acts on.

The practical consequence: the formula reaches its smallest numbers on older, higher-mileage vehicles, which are exactly the vehicles where a reported accident does the most damage to a private sale. If an insurer sends you a 17c worksheet, treat it as the opening figure it is. The answer is not an argument about the formula, it is a valuation of your car built from comparable listings, written dealer offers and an independent appraisal, sent with a demand that states the number and where it came from.

How to prove a diminished value claim

The owner proves the loss. Florida’s regulator puts it in as many words, that the claimant is responsible for providing proof of the loss to the insurer, and Virginia’s tells insurers to consider any credible evidence of it. These are the documents that supply that evidence, in the order they are usually gathered.

  1. 1

    Fix the pre-crash value

    Establish what the vehicle was worth the day before the collision, with the trim, options, mileage and condition it actually had. Print comparable listings for vehicles like yours with clean histories, and keep the trade-in and retail figures the major valuation guides give for that exact configuration. Screenshots with dates are worth more later than a remembered number.

  2. 2

    Keep the whole repair file

    Collect the estimate, the final invoice, the supplements, the parts list and the photographs taken before, during and after the work. Structural repair, frame or unibody work, airbag deployment and replaced sheet metal are the entries that move a resale price most, and they are the entries that justify a larger loss.

  3. 3

    Pull the vehicle history report

    Obtain the report a buyer or dealer will see and read what it actually says about the accident. That report is the mechanism of the loss: it is why the discount exists, and a copy belongs in the claim file with everything else.

  4. 4

    Get an independent appraisal

    Commission an appraisal from a licensed independent appraiser who inspects the vehicle and values it against the market, rather than accepting the insurer’s worksheet. A usable appraisal states the pre-loss value, the post-repair value, the comparable vehicles and offers it relied on, and the appraiser’s qualifications. Weak appraisals lose on their reasoning, as Ohlmeier shows an appraisal being attacked line by line, so the reasoning is what to check before you send it.

  5. 5

    Collect written offers where you can get them

    A dealer offer in writing for your repaired vehicle, next to listings for comparable vehicles with clean records, is the most concrete evidence of the loss available to a private owner. Two or three offers are better than one, and an emailed offer is easier to attach than a verbal one.

  6. 6

    Send a demand that states the number and its basis

    Write to the insurer with the figure you are claiming, the pre-loss value, the post-repair value, and the documents behind each. Attach the appraisal, the listings, the offers, the repair invoice and the history report. A demand with a number and its arithmetic is answerable; a demand that asks the adjuster to work it out is not.

  7. 7

    Send it after the repair and before any release

    The claim is measured on a repaired vehicle, so it is made once the work is complete and the final invoice exists. Make it before you sign anything releasing the property damage claim, because that signature is what ends it.

  8. 8

    Escalate in writing if the claim is refused

    Ask the insurer for its valuation and the basis for it in writing, in the same terms you gave yours. Some states supply a procedure for the disagreement, such as the appraisal process North Carolina’s financial responsibility statute builds around the before-and-after difference, and state insurance departments take consumer complaints about how a claim was handled. Where the claim is large or the policy wording is in dispute, that is the point at which a licensed attorney in your state earns the fee.

Deadlines and releases: the two ways this claim disappears

A diminished value claim is a property damage claim, and in a number of states the limitations period for property damage is not the deadline for an injury claim from the same crash: usually longer, occasionally shorter. California is one example we read at the statute: an action for injuring goods or chattels runs three years under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(c)(1), while the injury deadline our California pages carry is two years. So do not read the deadline off an injury page and assume it governs the car. The chart above carries the property damage period we read at each statute; confirm it with a licensed attorney in your state, and diary the earlier of the two if you have both kinds of claim.

The deadline that actually ends most of these claims is not a statute, it is a signature. Insurers commonly settle the vehicle damage early with a release covering the property damage claim, and once that document is signed the loss in value is normally gone with everything else in it, months before any limitations period matters. Read what the release covers before you sign, ask whether the diminished value claim is included, and get the answer in writing. If the claim has not been valued yet, that is a reason to wait rather than a reason to sign.

What the numbers look like, and the situations that change them

The arithmetic of a diminished value demand is simple: value before, value after, the difference. The figures below are the invented car from the 17c section, carried through a demand to show the shape of it. None of them is a prediction for any vehicle.

  • Leased and financed vehicles

    Who owns the vehicle decides who owns this claim, and on a lease that is normally the leasing company rather than the driver. Read the lease and the finance agreement for what they say about damage claims and proceeds before you make a demand, and ask a licensed attorney in your state who has to sign what. A lender with a lien on the title can also have a say in how a property damage payment is applied.

  • A total loss is a different argument

    If the insurer declares the vehicle a total loss, it is never repaired, so there is no post-repair loss in value to measure. What replaces this claim is a dispute about actual cash value: what the vehicle was worth immediately before the crash. The evidence is similar, comparable listings and dealer offers, but the claim you are making is not the one on this page.

  • Fault, deductibles and the two routes

    The third-party route depends on the other driver being responsible, and where fault is shared your state’s negligence rule applies to the property damage claim as it does to the rest of the case. The first-party route depends on your own policy and usually on your collision deductible. When both are open, the chart above tells you which one your state actually answers.

  • The injury side is a separate claim

    Diminished value compensates the vehicle. Medical bills, lost income and pain and suffering are a different claim with a different deadline in most states, and they are usually the larger number. The calculator on this site frames that injury claim; it does not compute diminished value, and no calculator can, because the figure comes from evidence about one particular car.

Illustrative example, invented numbers, not a prediction
Pre-crash market value from comparable listings (invented)
$30,000
Repair invoice paid by the insurer (invented; not part of this claim)
$9,000
Post-repair value with the accident on the history report (invented appraisal)
$26,400
Inherent diminished value: $30,000 less $26,400
$3,600
What the 17c arithmetic produced on the same invented car
$600
Independent appraisal the owner paid for (invented)
$400
Figure demanded in this invented example
$3,600

Three things to do now: find your state’s two answers in the chart, read your own policy for what it promises when it repairs, and put the pre-loss and post-repair values in writing before you sign any release. A licensed attorney in your state confirms which rules apply to your vehicle. Nothing on this page is legal advice.

Estimate the injury side of your crash claim

Your state changes the rules

Pick your state for its fault rule, its injury filing deadline and the crash calculator; the two diminished value answers for that state are in the chart above.

Car Accident claims: the national picture

  • Filing deadlines range from 1 year to 6 years by state (average 2.7 years)
  • 9 of 51 states cap non-economic damages for this claim type
  • 12 states use no-fault auto insurance, which changes when you can claim pain and suffering

Popular state guides

CaliforniaTexasFloridaNew YorkPennsylvaniaIllinoisOhioGeorgiaAll states →

Which case type is your potential case?

The same situation runs through different legal lanes depending on how it happened — and the lane changes what you can recover.

Car Accident →

The motor vehicle calculator values the injury side of a crash claim, your medical bills, lost income and your state’s fault rule; it does not compute diminished value, which is a property damage claim proven from evidence about your particular vehicle.

Frequently Asked Questions

Keep reading

Legal guide

Car Accident Settlement Amounts by Injury Type

What drives the number for whiplash, disc, concussion, fracture and spinal claims, the six value drivers, and the policy-limit ceiling.

Legal guide

What to Do After a Car Accident: Legal Checklist

A printable legal checklist for the first hours, days and weeks: reporting, evidence, insurers, medical care and deadlines.

Legal guide

T-Bone Accident Settlements: Fault Rules by State

Who is at fault in a side impact, the 51-state fault rule and deadline chart, and the 8 records that prove it.

Legal guide

Motorcycle Accident Lawsuit Settlements by State

How a rider’s lawsuit is valued, the helmet and fault arguments, and a 51-state deadline chart.

Legal guide

Truck Accident Settlements: Caps by State

The 51-state cap and deadline chart, the $750,000 federal insurance floor, and who else can be liable.

Legal guide

Lowball Settlement Offer? 10-Step Response Checklist

Ten steps for answering a low first offer: what the number tells you, how to counter in writing, and when it becomes bad faith.

Legal guide

Personal Injury Statute of Limitations by State

Filing deadlines for car accident, slip and fall, malpractice and wrongful death claims in every state, with the exceptions that move them.

Sources & review

Information on this page reflects laws and published figures as of 2026-09-13. This is general information, not legal or medical advice, and not a prediction for any potential case. Verify current rules with a licensed attorney before making decisions. Learn about our methodology.

See what your potential case may be worth

Your own medical bills, lost wages, and recovery matter more than any average. The free calculator applies your state’s rules to your answers — private, no sign-up.

What's My Case Worth?

Prefer to talk it through? Call (866) 575-2304 for a free potential-case review.

Advertising · CaseValue.law is operated by LeadVera Media, a marketing company — not a law firm. It does not provide legal services, and no lawyer reviews your inquiry. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not connect you with an attorney. You are never obligated to hire anyone, we do not vouch for any law firm's quality, and we are not affiliated with any government agency.