While determining the value of property is important, it is equally critical to assess whether the financial costs and inconvenience of not having it should factor into compensation for not being able to use that property. In Lafayette City-Par. Consol Gov’t v. Triple T Enters, No. 25-26, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 2039 (Lafeyette City), the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly awarded loss of use damages after an intoxicated driver destroyed the fire department’s custom-built fire pumper truck in a motor vehicle crash. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
In Lafayette City, the crash destroyed a custom-built pumper truck used as a spare for the fire department’s fleet if any other trucks were taken out of service. Employees of the department testified that losing the truck created a serious operational risk. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiff the truck’s actual cost value, loss of use, and punitive damages. The trial court used a hypothetical rental cost of $275 per day for fifteen months to calculate the loss of use damages. Both parties appealed. Among the issues addressed on appeal were whether the trial court erred in awarding loss of use damages and, if not, whether the amount awarded was excessive.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts award for loss of use damages, emphasizing the unique nature of custom-built firetrucks and the operational impact resulting from the loss of the spare truck. Finding the trial court’s approach reasonable, the Court of Appeals applied the “spare boat” doctrine, which prevents a tortfeasor from benefiting from a plaintiff’s foresight in maintaining spare equipment for emergencies as opposed to being used in the ordinary course of business. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the fire department is in the business of responding to emergencies and maintaining spare pumper trucks is an essential part of their preparedness.
Additionally, the court recognized the distinction of this case from a prior ruling that denied loss of use where no depreciation or operational impact occurred. See Jensen v. Matute, 289 So.3d 1136 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2020). In Jensen, the plaintiff’s cello was damaged in a motor vehicle collision, but he used an old cello as a substitute while repairs were made. The court held, “absent a showing of actual damages, a plaintiff, is not entitled to recover loss of use damages.” By contrast, the Court of Appeals in Lafayette City noted that increased reliance on the department’s spare vehicles caused wear and tear and created the risk of station closures, posing a threat to public safety.
Here, the trial court calculated its loss of use award by multiplying the daily rental rate testified to by the Fleet Superintendent by fifteen months, the turnaround time needed to get a new custom pumper truck. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Louisiana law allows loss of use damages when there is a reasonable basis for not renting or buying a substitute vehicle and that the award was neither excessive nor erroneous.
Lafayette City establishes that hypothetical rental costs can serve as a valid measure of damages when the loss impacts essential public services and business operations. This decision underscores that a recovery for loss of use can mean the difference between a marginal recovery and a meaningful one. Subrogation professionals should obtain loss of use evidence early - particularly where the vehicle damaged is not an easily interchangeable commodity - and treat it as a core component of damages that can significantly increase claim value.
[View source.]
