pay the actual cash value of the vehicle at the time of loss”); Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 157 Ariz. 1, 754 P.2d 330, 331 (App. Div. 2 2/29/99) (interpreting “repair or replace the property or part with like kind and quality”, the court stated that “nowhere in the policy does there appear any language which requires [the insurer] either to restore the vehicle to its pre-accident condition or to pay the insured the difference in value after the accident as opposed to before”). C 21 A.2d 350, 354 (Del.Super.Ct.1992) (finding that “an insurer’s provision to ‘repair or replace’ a vehicle or its parts with ‘like kind and quality’ is ambiguous and requires that the insurer pay for diminution in value”); Venable v. Import Volkswagen, Inc., 214 Kan. 43, 519 P.2d 667, 672 (1974) (<HOLDING>) ; Senter v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 702
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 when the insurer elects to repair or replace the damaged  part with other of like kind and quality less depreciation the insurer is obligated to put the automobile in substantially the same condition it was prior to the collision so as to render it as valuable and serviceable as before with the insured being compensated for any deficiency in loss of actual 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 where the policy limited liability to the cost to repair or replace the property  with other of like kind and quality less depreciation 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