that there is no coverage for diminished value claims are: Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 00-1503 (Fla. App. 4th Dist.6/13/2001), 788 So.2d 355 (finding no ambiguity and concluding there was no reading of the policy that obligated the insurer to pay for inherent diminution in market value where the insurer’s liability was limited to the lesser of the actual cash value of the property or the “amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of the like kind and quality;” this loss is simply not the type of damage that is subject to repair and, thus, is not a covered loss where the policy |islimits the insurer’s liability to the amount necessary to repair the vehicle); Rezevskis v. Aries Ins. Co., 2000-1985 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 3/14/2001), 784 So.2d 472, 474 (<HOLDING>); O’Brien v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co.,
holding that the repair or replace limitation of liability capped the insurers liability at the amount necessary to return the car to substantially the same condition as before the loss and did not include liability for loss due to stigma on resale holding that joint and several liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud defendant as condition of probation holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract holding that if the insurer has any liability at all to the owner for a building damaged by a covered peril and deemed a total loss that liability is for the face amount of the policy citation omitted emphasis in original