Maya H. Ginga

After Adam Ercolini collided with a Commerce insured vehicle and suffered collision damage to his car, Commerce paid to repair Ercolini’s car and restore it to its prior condition. Ercolini nevertheless sued Commerce on his own behalf (as a third-party claimant) and on behalf of a putative class. According to Ercolini, Commerce had to pay for “inherent diminished value” damages (or IDV damages), the alleged difference in market value of a car that has been fully repaired after an accident compared to the market value of the same car before the collision. The underlying theory: there is an alleged stigma attached to vehicles that have been in an accident, regardless of repair. Ercolini asserted claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and alleged violations of G.L. c. 93A.

Commerce moved for summary judgement. Judge Salinger granted the motion. Judge Salinger grounded his decision, in part, on his synthesis of Massachusetts tort law: “[W]here damaged property has been fully repaired, and the responsible party has paid the full repair costs, . . . the property owner is not entitled to collect and the responsible party is not obligated to pay any additional amount for residual diminution of value.” He concluded: “[U]nless and until the appellate courts change this rule, the policy language at issue here does not give [Ercolini] any right to recover for alleged IDV damages in addition to recovering the full cost to repair [his] vehicle[].”

Nelson Apjohn and Eric Magnuson led the Nutter team. Melanie Woodward and Joe Toomey assisted in early investigation of the facts and legal issues and in serving and responding to discovery. Nehal Khorraminejad and Maya Ginga assisted in preparing the motion for summary judgment. The entire team was assisted by Kate Johns, Paige Smith, Jennifer Catarius, Chris Feldman, Kelly Cannizzaro, and Lila Abraham.