the insured’s vehicle were repaired improperly or not repaired at all; the court concluded the repairs did not restore the car to its former condition and value); Roberdeau, 231 S.W.2d at 951-52 (finding some repairs made but additional repairs could have restored vehicle to the same or as good condition); see also Cope, 448 S.W.2d at 718 (finding no repairs were made due to parties' disagreement over the correct measure of damages). Other cases address the consequences of an insurer’s inappropriate decision to repair rather than declare the vehicle a total loss. See, e.g., Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Underwood, 791 S.W.2d 635, 643-45, 647 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, no writ) (finding insured’s truck was incapable of being repaired because it was flood damaged); Cope, 448 S.W.2d at 718-719 (<HOLDING>). 13 . Although the court in Higgins was
holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance holding there cannot be a complete restoration of the property unless it can be said that there has been no diminution of value after repair of the car and adding that the appropriate and fair measure of damages could be achieved by awarding either the difference between the fair cash value of the car before and after the collision or similarly the cost of repairs plus any diminution in value holding insurer was not obligated to repair the damaged automobile to both its preaccident condition and market value concluding that permitting coverage of diminished value would render meaningless the insurers clear policy right to repair rather than pay actual cash value 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 if the insurer cannot return the vehicle to substantially the same condition then the actual cash value is the appropriate measure where insured sued for damages caused by insurers inappropriate election to repair and the value after repairs was almost sixty percent less than its preloss value