## Facts

- Henry T. Averett negligently collided with and damaged James V. Shircliff’s automobile and certain personal property.
- Liability was admitted; the trial focused only on property damages.
- The jury was instructed that damages were the difference in the car’s fair market value immediately before and after the accident, except that if the car could be restored by repairs costing less than the diminution in value, damages were repair costs plus depreciation.
- Evidence conflicted regarding (1) the vehicle’s before-and-after market values and (2) whether repairs could restore the car to its former condition.
- The jury awarded Shircliff $4,000 for automobile damage (and a small additional amount for personal property).
- The trial court set aside the automobile-damage verdict, ruled the plaintiff should have an “election” between diminution in value and repair-cost-plus-depreciation, and entered a lower judgment based on diminution in value.
- The trial court also barred cross-examination of the defendant’s valuation witnesses intended to show bias from their connection to the defendant’s liability insurer.

## Issues

1. What is the proper measure of damages in Virginia for an automobile damaged but not destroyed: a plaintiff’s election between diminution in value and repair costs plus depreciation, or a single rule applied by the fact-finder?
2. Did the trial court err by setting aside the jury’s damages verdict and substituting its own damages figure where evidence on value and restorability conflicted?
3. Did the trial court err by preventing cross-examination aimed at showing appraiser bias through their relationship with the defendant’s liability insurer?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reinstated the jury’s automobile-damage verdict.
- The court adopted a “general rule” for automobiles damaged but not destroyed: damages are the before-and-after market value difference, except that if the car is restorable by repairs costing less than the diminution in value, recovery is reasonable repair cost plus a reasonable allowance for depreciation.
- The court rejected the view that the plaintiff has an election between these measures; the jury applies the single rule to the facts.
- Because evidence was conflicting on market value and restorability, those factual questions were for the jury, and the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict and entering judgment as a matter of law.
- The court upheld the exclusion of cross-examination about the defendant’s insurer’s relationship to valuation witnesses because it would improperly inject insurance into the case.

## Legal Principles

- For an automobile damaged but not destroyed, the default measure is the difference between market value immediately before and immediately after the damage.
- If the vehicle can be restored to its former condition by repairs and repair costs are less than the diminution in value, damages are reasonable repair costs plus a reasonable allowance for depreciation.
- The plaintiff has no unilateral election of damages standards; the fact-finder selects the appropriate measure by applying the governing rule to disputed facts.
- When evidence conflicts on value and restorability, those matters are for the jury; a trial court may not substitute its own damages determination after a properly instructed verdict.
- Evidence or cross-examination that primarily reveals liability insurance may be excluded when its effect would be to inject insurance into the trial, even if offered to suggest witness bias.

## Conclusion

Virginia applies a single, jury-applied rule for damages to a repairable automobile: diminution in value is the baseline, with repair cost plus depreciation available only when repairs can restore the vehicle and cost less than the diminution; conflicting valuation and restorability evidence is for the jury, and insurance-linked bias cross-examination may be excluded to avoid introducing insurance into the case.


Averett v. Shircliff, 218 Va. 202 (1977)