Moffitt v. Harris

Moffitt v. Harris

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to prove diminished value with sufficient, non-speculative evidence (no firm plan to sell, dealership testimony and letter were inconclusive), and general damages for emotional upset were not appropriate; therefore no award and no costs.

Citation
2013 NSSM 33
Parties
Claimant: PHILLIPPE MELVIN MOFFITT; Defendant: MELVIN HARRIS
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Diminished Value, Accelerated Depreciation, General Damages for Emotional Upset, Speculative Damages, Insurance Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHILLIPPE MELVIN MOFFITT

Claimant

MELVIN HARRIS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision Following Hearing

  1. 1 Whether claimant proved diminished value (accelerated depreciation) damages for future loss in resale value
  2. 2 Whether the December 15, 2011 amendments to the Insurance Act (s.138A) preclude a direct claim between insured parties
  3. 3 Whether general damages for emotional upset arising from chattel damage are recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to prove diminished value with sufficient, non-speculative evidence (no firm plan to sell, dealership testimony and letter were inconclusive), and general damages for emotional upset were not appropriate; therefore no award and no costs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No costs awarded to claimant