is the difference in the fair market value of the injured premises before and after the injury. Belkus v. City of Brockton, 282 Mass. 285, 184 N.E. 812, 813 (1933). “If the injury is reasonably curable by repairs, the expense of repairs, if less than the diminished market value, is the measure of recovery.” Id., 184 N.E. at 813-14. However, Massachusetts courts “have not expressly defined the concept of permanent injury to realty.” Black v. Coastal Oil New England, Inc., 45 Mass.App.Ct. 461, 699 N.E.2d 353, 356 (1998). As a result, most courts applying the diminution in fair market value test use repair costs as either the measure of damages or as evidence of the extent of the diminution. See Dalton v. Demos Bros. Gen. Contractors, Inc., 334 Mass. 377, 135 N.E.2d 646, 647 (1956) (<HOLDING>); Hopkins, 80 N.E. 624 (holding that in many
holding that if despite repairs there remains a loss in actual market value estimated as of the collision date such deficiency is to be added to the cost of repairs 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 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 the total cost of repairs could be found to be a fair measure of the plaintiffs total damage holding where a house sold by defendant was found to fall short of the sellers promises and where it could not be repaired to the promised condition defendants liability could not be limited to the cost of repairs however if the repairs had been adequate to restore the house to its promised condition and if plaintiff had claimed additional consequential damages for example water damage to a rug from the leaky roof the limitationofremedies clause would have been effective