D & T Sanitation, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 11 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 3-881A202,3-881A202 |
Parties | D & T SANITATION, INC., Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee (Defendant Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jerrald A. Crowell, Bowman, Crowell & Teeters, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
John F. Lyons, James P. Fenton, Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, Fort Wayne, for appellee.
D & T Sanitation, Inc. (D & T), is an Indiana corporation which engages in the business of garbage collection and disposal. In conducting such business, D & T owned and operated a 1974 Ford truck and a Heil trash packer. This equipment had a fair market value of $35,000 prior to being extensively damaged by fire on September 1, 1978. Notice of claim was duly filed with D & T's insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm).
Prior to the next business day after the fire, D & T was able to obtain a substitute truck-packer unit. This acquisition enabled D & T to meet all of its customer service obligations. Accordingly, the company lost neither customers nor profits as a consequence of the fire.
Despite D & T's belief that the truck-packer unit was a total loss, the company was assured by State Farm and its independent appraisers that the equipment could be fully restored for considerably less than the full value thereof. State Farm thus elected to repair rather than replace the damaged unit. However, evidence presented at trial revealed that no visible repairs had been made by March 1979. State Farm did advise on several occasions from September 1979 to April 1980 that the repairs were complete. In each instance, however, D & T found the repairs to be inadequate, particularly as they related to the hydraulic system. D & T subsequently brought suit for compensatory and exemplary damages.
The trial court found the unit to be a total loss and accordingly awarded D & T the fair market value prior to damage. In addition, the court awarded a pro-rated portion of the interest expense incurred by D & T in acquiring the replacement unit. D & T now appeals this assessment of damages as being inadequate. State Farm also claims that the trial court erred in refusing to entertain newly discovered evidence regarding the actual value of the unit.
The trial court entered a specific finding that D & T had suffered no loss of use damages since the company was able to immediately secure an adequate replacement unit. Appellant contends, however, that as a matter of law it is entitled to recover the reasonable rental value of the equipment during the period of repair. Such contention, however, has no merit.
Professor Dan B. Dobbs has commented that:
"Loss of use claims are most commonly asserted for a period of time when the chattel is being repaired, but sometimes the chattel is destroyed and is not repairable. In such cases, loss of use claims are sometimes asserted for the period required to replace the chattel. A number of courts have refused to permit loss of use awards in cases of total destruction, and have limited recovery in such cases to the value of the article.
Handbook of the Law of Remedies (1973) Sec. 5.11, p. 384.
The Restatement of Torts, Sec. 927 reads:
" 'Where a person is entitled to a judgment for the conversion of a chattel or the destruction of any legally protected interest in land or other thing, the damages include
destruction, or a different value where that is necessary to give just compensation, and
(c) interest from the time at which the value is fixed or compensation for the loss of use.' " (Emphasis added.)
Though numerous cases are cited in which loss of use damages were awarded where further loss was suffered as a result of such deprivation, appellant fails to enumerate what loss beyond the market value of the equipment was suffered in the instant case. In New York Central R.R. Co. v. Churchill et al., supra, 140 Ind.App. at 426, at 434, 218 N.E.2d 372, at 277, it was held that:
Had D & T suffered any consequential damages, such as lost profits or customers, as a result of being deprived of the use of the damaged equipment, a valid claim for the damages sought would then be established.
Appellant argues that denying recovery for the rental value in effect penalizes it for immediately securing a replacement vehicle. The aim of compensatory damages, however, is not to penalize either party, rather it is to indemnify the injured party for the loss sustained. 9 I.L.E. Damages Sec. 3 (1971). Appellant fulfilled its duty of mitigating the loss, and the trial court accordingly awarded damages intended to place D & T in the same position it occupied prior to the fire. To allow recovery beyond the injury actually suffered would provide a windfall in the nature of exemplary damages, for which appellant also makes claim.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying punitive damages as a result of applying the wrong standard of conduct. A long line of Indiana cases has established that:
Hoosier Ins. Co., Inc. v. Mangino (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 978, at 981.
The trial court in the case at bar entered a specific finding which reads:
It is apparent from this finding that the trial court did in fact apply the proper standard in the instant cause. 1 In Amer. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bentley (1976), 170 Ind.App. 321, at 328-329, 352 N.E.2d 860, at 865, this Court noted that on appeal:
Appellant's contention merely invites this Court to reweigh the evidence, a practice in which it is well settled that this Court will not engage.
Appellant finally contends that the trial court erred in failing to award certain incidental expenses; specifically, $75 for towing charges, $50 for labor in unloading the trash compactor, and $440.62 for replacement tires.
The towing charges were paid by the appellant in order that the damaged vehicle might be moved to the repairman's garage. State Farm admitted liability for payment of this expense at trial, and the issue is thereby waived.
It was necessary to unload debris from the trash packer before undertaking its repair. Appellant was advised by State Farm's appraiser that $50 had been authorized for payment of labor expended in this cleaning process. D & T did in fact unload the packer, but presented no evidence at trial concerning the value of the labor expended. That damages must be proven with certainty is fundamental. The damage appraiser's report standing alone is not sufficient to entitle appellant to recover. Without direct evidence of the actual expense incurred, the trial court was correct in denying the claim.
The tires on the truck were totally destroyed by the fire. In order to tow this vehicle to a repair garage, it was therefore necessary to first replace its tires. The independent property damage appraiser estimated replacement cost at over $1,000. In fact, D & T was able to purchase new tires for $988.74. State Farm, however, reimbursed the company only $559.38, which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mci, LLC v. Patriot Engineering and Environmental
... ... PATRIOT ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Defendant ... No. 1:06-cv-00945-DFH-JMS ... Shepard v. State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co., 463 F.3d 742, 745 ... State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Pate, 275 F.3d ... party for the loss sustained." D & T Sanitation, Inc. v ... Page 1040 ... State Farm Mutual ... ...
-
Jensen v. Allan M. Matute, Alma Miladis Antunez Menocal, Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
...Interurban Transp. Co. v. F. Strauss & Sons , 196 So. 367, 370 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1940) ;10 D & T Sanitation, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co ., 443 N.E.2d 1207, 1209 (Ind. App.1983).11 Such is the case here. Dr. Jensen prevented any compensable loss of use damage by reverting t......
-
D & T Sanitation, Inc. v. Indiana State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...dissent to the denial of plaintiff's petition to transfer from the Court of Appeals' decision in D & T Sanitation v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., (1983) Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 1207. Plaintiff, D & T Sanitation (D & T) raises several issues in its petition, only one of which I believe merits co......