for $475 — the amount spent on repairs, less the deductible. See id. The trial court expressly found, however, that these repairs did not restore the vehicle to its pre-accident condition, and that it was possible to restore it to its pre-accident condition 2d 175, 178 (Tenn.Ct.App.1985) ("Each of three factors — function, appearance, and value — must be substantially restored. If the repairs restore function and appearance but not fair market value, then the insured is entitled to recovery. We believe the measure of recovery should be the difference in the fair market value of the property immediately before the accident and immediately after the accident assuming all repairs had been completed.”); MFA Ins. Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Hope, 260 Ark. 849, 545 S.W.2d 70, 71-72 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Venable v. Import Volkswagen, Inc., 214 Kan.
holding that to find the measure of damages as the difference in market value immediately before and after the collision would be arbitrarily reading out of the policy the right of defendant to make repairs or replace the damaged part with materials of like kind and quality holding that unless the collision resulted in a total loss the measure of recovery is the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle in the condition in which it was immediately prior to the collision and its value thereafter holding that if repairs to a firedamaged vehicle with parts of like kind and quality would not restore the vehicle to its former market value the proper measure of damages was the difference in market value before and after the loss holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion