Gough-Northrup v. Hammonds, 2022 Ohio 4342

Appellant Julie Gough-Northrup sued Kimberly Hammonds for diminished value to her 2015 Subaru after a 2018 collision; complaint filed September 28, 2020.
Trial court granted summary judgment to appellant as to liability only; a hearing was held to determine damages.
Appellant’s expert (Longenette) testified he inspected the vehicle in April 2019, valued pre-accident retail at $19,200, post-repair value at $14,900, and asserted residual diminished value (RDV) of about $4,300; he admitted using retail for pre-accident value but trade-in/wholesale reasoning for post-repair value and had not seen the car in damaged condition when preparing his report.
Appellee’s expert (Tilton) reviewed photographs and repair documents, opined damage was cosmetic and repairable, gave post-accident/post-repair value equal or close to pre-accident value (no RDV), and criticized Longenette’s methodology.
Trial court concluded Longenette used a deceptive method (retail pre-value vs. trade-in post-value), found no diminution in value, awarded only the $1,000 deductible, and credited appellee’s expert.
On appeal, appellant argued the trial court confused which expert had inspected the car and that she met her burden to prove diminished value; the court acknowledged the confusion but deemed it harmless and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by confusing which expert inspected the vehicle	Court misidentified experts’ inspections; Longenette actually inspected the vehicle	Any confusion was harmless because evidence still failed to prove RDV	Court acknowledged the confusion but found it harmless and did not reverse
Whether appellant proved residual diminution in value by a preponderance of the evidence	Longenette’s valuation established RDV (pre-accident retail $19,200 vs. post-repair $14,900)	Longenette used inconsistent/deceptive methodology (retail vs. trade-in); Tilton showed no RDV	Court held plaintiff failed to meet her burden; no RDV awarded beyond deductible

Falter v. Toledo, 158 N.E.2d 893 (Ohio 1959) (owner may recover difference between market value immediately before and immediately after a collision)
Williams v. Sharon Woods Collision Ctr., Inc., 117 N.E.3d 57 (Ohio 2018) (addresses proof of diminished value and evidentiary requirements)
Rakich v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 875 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio App. 2007) (defines residual diminution in value concept and relation to repair costs)
Wray v. Stvartak, 700 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio App.) (discusses fair market/retail value as willing buyer/seller price)
Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co., 313 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio App. 1973) (distinguishes retail/fair market value from trade-in/wholesale value)