that damages for loss of use may be recovered when a vehicle is totally destroyed. Because a vehicle is a complete loss if stolen, a stolen vehicle should be treated in the same way as a completely destroyed vehicle for purposes of loss of use damages. However, recovery for loss of use damages must be limited to a period of time reasonably necessary for securing a replacement. Nashban Barrel & Container Co. v. G.G. Parsons Trucking Co., 49 Wis.2d 591, 182 N.W.2d 448, 454 (1971); Cecere v. Harquail, 104 A.D.2d 6, 481 N.Y.S.2d 533 (1984); Remedies, supra § 5.11, at 385. Here, United indicated it could not afford to purchase a replacement. But, a plaintiffs recovery should not be premised on his or her actual ability to purchase a replacement. See, e.g., New York Cent., 218 N.E.2d at 377 (<HOLDING>); Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Boren, 202 Ky.
holding plaintiff who did not purchase an available replacement because of financial inability could nonetheless recover for loss of use of a totally destroyed car holding that a plaintiff who did not replace a destroyed tractortrailer due to lack of funds and failure to find a suitable replacement could recover for loss of use of the vehicle limited to a reasonable time holding that where the owner of a tractor knew immediately after the accident that the tractor was a total loss damages for loss of use were not recoverable beyond a reasonable time limited to 30 days notwithstanding the owners financial inability to replace the property for eight months holding that plaintiff whose truck was demolished in an accident could not recover lost profits unless he could show that he could not obtain a suitable substitute vehicle holding that the repair or replace limitation of liability capped the insurers liability at the amount necessary to return the car to substantially the same condition as before the loss and did not include liability for loss due to stigma on resale