additional repairs. See id. The Austin Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further development of the facts on damages. See id. at 951. In doing so, the court noted that the insurer did not discharge its repair obligations because it had failed to repair the car to its pre-accident condition; accordingly, the cost of the inadequate repairs was not the proper measure of recovery. See id. Remand was necessary because of the absence of a finding concerning the cost to properly repair the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. See id. The appellate court disregarded the trial court’s findings regarding post-accident and post-repair reduction in the actual cash value of the car. See id. 15 . See Delledonne v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 621 A.2d 350, 353 (Del.Super.Ct.1992) (<HOLDING>); Senter v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 702
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 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 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 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 in a case of first impression that an insurers provision to repair or replace a vehicle or its parts with like kind and quality requires that the insurer pay for diminution in value