Santa Rosa Golf Assocs. v. Haraway
33 Fla. L. Weekly D2840 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
The trial court erroneously adopted two competing methods of measuring property damage. Generally, damages for the wrongful injury of property are measured either by the diminution in the value of the property, referred to as the diminution in value rule, or by the costs of repairing or restoring the property to its condition prior to the injury, referred to as the restoration rule.If the cost of repairs or restoration is less than the diminution in value, then the law requires that damages be measured by the costs of repairs or restoration. If the cost of repairs or restoration exceeds the diminution in value or if repairing or restoring the property is impracticable, then the law requires that damages be measured by the diminution in value. Restricting the costs of repairs or restoration to the diminution in value is a means to prevent plaintiffs from being overcompensated or from receiving overlapping recovery. The trial court should have adopted only the cost of repairs as the measure of damages. The cost of repairs did not exceed the diminution in value and there was no evidence that repairing the appellees' property was impracticable.