## Facts

- Richard Harris leased a 1988 Audi from U.B. Vehicle Leasing, Inc. (UB).
- The Audi was destroyed in a collision with a vehicle driven by Scott Peters.
- Peters’s insurer issued Harris a check for the Audi’s fair market value.
- Harris endorsed the check to UB, and UB applied the proceeds to the lease account.
- Even after applying the insurance proceeds, UB claimed a remaining lease balance of $5,560.48.
- UB sued Harris in the circuit court to collect the remaining balance allegedly due under the lease.
- Harris filed a third-party complaint against Peters seeking compensatory damages equal to any amount Harris might be ordered to pay UB—seeking, in substance, the difference between the car’s fair market value and the total lease obligation.
- The circuit court dismissed Harris’s third-party complaint against Peters.
- Harris appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a lessee whose leased vehicle is totally destroyed may recover from the negligent driver tort damages beyond the vehicle’s pre-loss fair market value, including the remaining unpaid lease balance.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Harris’s third-party complaint against Peters.
- The court concluded that Harris was fully compensated for the property loss when the fair market value of the destroyed vehicle was paid.
- The court held that the unpaid lease balance was a contractual obligation between Harris and UB and was not additional tort property damage recoverable from Peters.

## Legal Principles

- Compensatory damages are intended to compensate, indemnify, or make restitution for a loss, restoring the injured party to the position held before the injury.
- Compensatory damages are not meant to place the plaintiff in a better position than before the loss or to allow a profit from the event.
- When personal property is destroyed or rendered useless, the usual measure of tort damages is the property’s fair market value immediately before its destruction.
- A plaintiff cannot convert a contract-based shortfall (such as remaining payments due under a lease after application of insurance proceeds) into additional negligence damages once the tort measure of property loss—fair market value—has been paid.

## Conclusion

Because Peters’s insurer paid the Audi’s pre-loss fair market value, the tort measure of damages for destruction of the vehicle was satisfied, and Harris could not recover the remaining lease balance from Peters as additional negligence damages; the dismissal of Harris’s third-party complaint was properly affirmed.


Harris v. Peters, 274 Ill. App. 3d 206 (1995)