Ronald Cassella v. Jennifer Lenches et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case involves a claim for property damage caused to the plaintiff's motor vehicle when it was in a collision with a motor vehicle operated by the defendant on May 27, 2008 in Branford, Connecticut.   The plaintiff claims that the defendant's negligent operation of her motor vehicle caused the collision and the resulting damage.   The defendant has admitted that her negligence caused the collision.   This court heard the matter as a hearing in damages on September 16, 2010.

The court finds the following facts and reaches the following conclusions.   The plaintiff is the owner of a 1971 Corvette Stingray LT-1. There were only 1,948 of these models produced by Chevrolet in 1971.   The plaintiff purchased the car from its second owner in 1975 when it had 21,000 miles on the odometer.   He used it sparingly, keeping it for most of the time covered in a garage.   He did not operate it in rain or snow.   He had it repainted in 1976 or 1977 at a Corvette specialty shop.   He maintained the car in its original condition.   When the plaintiff had the accident in question in 2007 he had owned the car for 32 years and had driven it less than 20,000 miles.   The car has never entered any shows, has never been judged by any Corvette association, has never received any awards or certificates, had never been appraised before the accident, and the plaintiff has never had any specialty insurance on the car.

In the accident on May 27, 2007 the car was damaged in the right rear area of the car.   Since the damage can be repaired the cost of the repairs will be the amount of damages.  Hawkins v. Garfod Trucking Co., 96 Conn. 337, 341-42 (1921).   Each party offered an exhibit and testimony with respect to the cost of the repairs.   The dispute concerns primarily the cost of repainting the car after the repairs are completed.   Because of this dispute the car has not yet been repaired.

The plaintiff offered evidence that the cost of the painting supplies and painting labor would be approximately $19,000.00.   The defendant offered evidence that the painting supplies and painting labor would cost approximately $1,000.00.   The primary reason for the substantial discrepancy between the parties on the cost of the repainting is that the plaintiff claims that the entire car must be repainted while the defendant claims that only the panels which have been replaced should be repainted.

The court finds that the plaintiff has proven that it is necessary to repaint the entire car rather than repaint 3 of the 13 panels on the car.   It is not possible to blend in a partial paint job with the old paint without the difference being obvious.   The plaintiff produced a witness who owns the Corvette Center and has been in the business of mechanical work, body repairs and sales of Corvettes for 32 years.   He testified that he could not match the old paint surfaces with the new paint if he were to only repaint the 3 panels that were damaged.   His estimate for doing the repairs, including a full paint job, was $25,985.35.

The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to have the cost of the work to be done on his car determined by using 2010 prices rather than 2007 prices, which are lower, or he should be awarded prejudgment interest on the amount of the repair charge.   The court will award prejudgment interest of 5% per annum on the cost of repairs from May 27, 2007 to the date of judgment.   The interest totals $4,595.54.

The plaintiff also seeks an award of $10,000.00 representing the depreciation of the car.   In support of this claim the plaintiff produced Ron Goduti, an expert in the evaluation of 1965-1973 Corvette cars.   He testified that the plaintiff's car is a high-performance Corvette and is considered very collectible by collectors and hobbyists.   Its value was between $60,000.00 and $70,000.00 before the accident but that the value will drop because the car has been damaged in an accident, even if adequate repairs are made.   He opined that the plaintiff's Corvette was a “special interest” vehicle and because it now had a history of damage it was no longer a “virgin” and had depreciated $10,000.00.   The court accepts Mr. Goduti's testimony.

The plaintiff also claims that he is entitled to be compensated for the loss of use of his car from the day of the accident to the present date.   There is no claim for loss of use in the complaint and therefore the plaintiff cannot make this claim.   In addition the evidence offered is insufficient for the court to find the value of the loss of use.   There was no evidence of the market rental value of the car, less the proportion of the rental value which covers wear and tear, and depreciation of the car.   See Hawkins, 340-41.

For the foregoing reasons the court finds that the plaintiff has proven that the cost to repair his Corvette is $25,985.35, that prejudgment interest is $4,595.54, and that the car has depreciated $10,000.00 in value.

A review of the record discloses that the plaintiff filed an offer of compromise in the amount of $40,000.00 on December 11, 2008, which the defendant has failed to accept.   The plaintiff has recovered an amount greater than the sum specified in the offer of compromise.   In accordance with Practice Book Section 17-18 the court awards offer of compromise 8% interest of $11,583.56.

A judgment in the amount of $52,164.45 may enter in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant.

William L. Hadden, Jr.

Judge Trial Referee

Hadden, William L., J.T.R.