Stigma damages allowed for defective construction
The Washington Supreme Court joins the Mississippi Supreme Court in holding that damages for the diminished value of property as well as cost of repair damages may be recovered for construction defects.
John Parnass summarizes the decision over at Washington Construction Law.
For similar reasons, the Mississippi Supreme Court approved the following jury instruction in Harrison v. McMillan:
If you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that repairs to 137 Overlook Pointe have or will substantially restore the property to its condition prior to its damage, then Fred McMillan's recovery for damage to 137 Overlook Pointe is the difference between the reasonable market value of that property before the damage and the reasonable market value of he property after being damaged. This difference is determined as follows:
1. If repairs restore the property at 137 Overlook Pointe to its reasonable market value before damage, Plaintiff's recovery for damage to that property would be his cost of reasonable and necessary repairs.
2. However, if repairs do not restore the property at 137 Overlook Pointe to its reasonable market value before the harm, Plaintiff's recovery for damages to the property at 137 Overlook Pointe is the reasonable cost to repair that property plus the difference between the reasonable market value of 137 Overlook Pointe without the damage less the reasonable market value of the property after all reasonable and necessary repairs have been made.