WPI 30.10 Measure of Damages—Damage to Personal Property—Repairs and Depreciation or Difference...

Insert this phrase as an element of economic damage in the appropriate damage instruction (WPI 30.01.01, WPI 30.02.01, or WPI 30.03.01) when the evidence justifies its use.

If there is no claim that the property has depreciated in value after it is repaired, use WPI 30.11 (Measure of Damages—Damage to Personal Property—Repairs or Difference in Value Before and After Damage).

If the cost of repairs plus depreciation will be less than the difference in value between the damaged and undamaged property, use WPI 30.12 (Measure of Damages—Damage to Personal Property—Cost of Repairs and Depreciation of Repaired Property).

If only the reasonable expense of necessary repairs is claimed and that is less than the difference in value of the property before and after the damage, use WPI 30.13 (Measure of Damages—Damage to Personal Property—Repairs).

If the difference in the value of property before and after it was damaged is less than the reasonable cost of repairs, use WPI 30.14 (Measure of Damages—Damage to Personal Property—Difference in Value Before and After Damage).

If the claim is for a building or personal property that was completely destroyed and has no salvage value, do not use this instruction. Instead, use WPI 30.15 (Measure of Damages—Damage to Personal Property—Value Before Damage—No Salvage).

This instruction may not be appropriate for damages to real estate or improvements thereon.

RCW 4.56.250(1)(a).

The statute defines economic damages as including both “loss of use of property” and “cost of replacement and repair.” Other traditional methods for measuring property damages may also be considered as “economic damages.” See the Comment accompanying WPI 30.01.02 (Economic Damages—Definition).

A reduction in the value of damaged property may be included as an element of damages when that element is supported by the evidence. Cf. Kaech v. Lewis Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 106 Wn.App. 260, 269–70, 23 P.3d 529, 91 A.L.R.5th 727 (2001) (instruction including this element of damages). On the question of a market for the particular property in question, see McCurdy v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 68 Wn.2d 457, 467–69, 413 P.2d 617 (1966).

In an action to recover damages for a building completely destroyed through negligence, the court held that the “lesser than” rule for measure of damages, comparing reasonable value of repairs against diminution in fair cash value, did not apply. Thompson v. King Feed & Nutrition Serv., Inc., 153 Wn.2d 447, 458–59, 105 P.3d 378 (2005). The court also held that the value of the lost building did not include the value of any uninjured real property that might be attached to the personal property. Thompson, 153 Wn.2d at 459.