in Roberdeau, 231 S.W.2d at 951, the court noted that further repair could restore the insured’s vehicle to the same, or as good, condition as before. 12 .Many of the cases address how to remedy inadequate or defective repairs. See, e.g., Barbee, 262 S.W.2d at 123-24 (finding more than twenty items coverage under the insurance policy, it did not engage in an analysis of the contract language but instead recited the tort measure of damages to personal property, i.e. ”[t]he difference between its reasonable market value at the time and place of its injury immediately before its injury and its value immediately after the injury.” 149 S.W.2d at 147. In stating that post-repair reduction in value could be recovered, the Higgins court cited cases involving tort, no 56 (Mo.App.1953) (<HOLDING>); Potomac Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 213 Miss. 520,
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 that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding the measure of damages in a negligence action is the reasonable necessary cost of restoring the injured automobile to its condition prior to its injury thereby giving it the same value it possessed immediately before its injury holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling 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