Mauney v. CarrollÂ, 251 N.C. App. 177

Plaintiff Nolan Mauney leased a 2013 Porsche Boxster S for 27 months; title remained with the lessor.
In October 2013 Defendant Stephanie Carroll caused a collision that damaged the Porsche; repairs were completed about 37–38 days later.
Plaintiff had the car repaired (repairs cost $6,311) and continued driving the Porsche for ~15 months before trading it in.
Plaintiff sued Defendant seeking: repair costs, loss-of-use damages for the repair period, and diminution-in-value damages.
Defendant moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s diminution-in-value and loss-of-use claims. Plaintiff appealed; he later voluntarily dismissed his remaining claim, making the partial summary-judgment order final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mauney may recover diminution in value for the vehicle or his lease interest	Mauney contends he can recover diminution in value caused by the accident (including for his leasehold interest)	Defendant contends Mauney lacks standing to recover diminution in value of the title owner's interest and presented no competent evidence of diminution to his leasehold	Affirmed: Mauney lacked competent evidence of diminution to his leasehold; offered evidence measured only the vehicle's full ownership diminution, not his lease interest, and the title owner would assert full-title loss.
Whether Mauney may recover loss-of-use damages for the repair period	Mauney argues he was deprived of use for ~37 days and offered evidence of comparable rental cost ($400/day) and his lease payment (~$40/day)	Defendant argues lack of standing or that Plaintiff failed to mitigate (rental offers refused; he had access to another vehicle)	Reversed and remanded: Triable issue exists as to entitlement and amount of loss-of-use; a jury must decide reasonableness of repair time/cost, mitigation, and appropriate measure of damages.

Roberts v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 273 N.C. 600 (1968) (owner may recover loss-of-use damages when vehicle can be repaired within a reasonable time and cost; rental cost is appropriate measure even if no substitute was rented)
Martin v. Hare, 78 N.C. App. 358 (1985) (loss-of-use recovery allowed for pleasure vehicles; no requirement an actual substitute be rented)
Aubin v. Susi, 149 N.C. App. 320 (2002) (standing is a prerequisite for subject-matter jurisdiction)
Sprinkle v. N.C. Wildlife Res. Comm’n, 165 N.C. App. 721 (2004) (payment/finance evidence can be used to measure loss-of-use damages)