Paint shop mishap w/hardtop

[thom4782]

You're entitled to the value of your top before the glass broke. They can either replace your top with an equivalent used one or you'll likely be liable for the incremental cost between the new top's value and the old top.

This rationale is the reason why you don't get a new car when your car is totaled in an accident. The negligent party only owes you what the value of your car was before it was damaged.

[JBauer]

Originally Posted by thom4782

You're entitled to the value of your top before the glass broke. They can either replace your top with an equivalent used one or you'll likely be liable for the incremental cost between the new top's value and the old top.

This rationale is the reason why you don't get a new car when your car is totaled in an accident. The negligent party only owes you what the value of your car was before it was damaged.

They owe him a new top because his window got broken?

Must be a California law. 🙄

[Starter986]

Originally Posted by JBauer

Must be a California law. ��

If it isn't law now, it will be. Thanks.

[thom4782]

I don't know if its a California law or a law anywhere else.

t's pretty simple really: the goal of awarding damages is to put the harmed party back in the same position - not a better position - they were in before the damage occurred. For example, it the shop destroyed a customer's top worth $500, then it owes the $500 either in a replacement top worth $500 or in money. The shop's not obligated to pay more then $500.

Do believe this? Well, why do you think insurance companies can replace damaged parts with used parts and avoid having to install new parts. It because used parts can restore the damaged property to is value. If the courts typically awarded the price of new parts in settling claims, this issue would have been litigated long ago in the favor of new parts for the owner. I'm pretty sure it hasn't worked out that way. The only way I see it turning out otherwise is if the shop were gross negligent and that would be very difficult to prove when glued-in glass is involved.

[JBauer]

OK now I agree. They may owe him a rear window.

Your earlier post said he should get a new top

[stomachbuzz]

Originally Posted by JBauer

OK now I agree. They may owe him a rear window.

Your earlier post said he should get a new top

I'm not sure what you're missing here...

If the shop can't figure out a way to replace the window, then the only remaining option is to replace the entire hard top.
The window is a large, integral part of the hard top.

I suppose there's a semi-intermediate option of reimbursing, or paying out, the cost in damages to the window - or what it would cost for someone else to replace the window, but I see this as equivalent as replacing the window.

If you can't fix it...then you must replace it.

This is exactly how all insurance works. If you hit my car, you must fix it. If you can't fix it (or if the cost of the fix exceeds a certain amount) then you must buy my car for the value pre-collision.

[JBauer]

Originally Posted by UPSETstomachbuzz

I'm not sure what you're missing here...
.

LOL You're not sure what I'm missing??

Why don't you try reading the original post before you say Im missing something. 🙄 They ordered him a window from Porsche.