requires valuation of the property at the time of loss or sentencing, even if that “presents] a difficult determination for the district court”). We therefore remand for findings of fact to support an order of restitution. The government urges us to uphold the inclusion of consequential damages on the grounds that the value of the property fraudulently obtained from Workman was $45,000, and that, since the full amount would be recoverable if Workman had not undertaken self-help measures (such as civil repossession), the lesser amount of $42,-500 should be recoverable even if it includes amounts expended in such self-help. The argument rests on infirm foundations. First, the argument assumes that th Cir.1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 755, 107 L.Ed.2d 771 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Mitchell, 876 F.2d at 1184 (hold ing that
holding that attorneys fees and costs spent by an insurance company to defend against civil suit filed by defendant are not recoverable under the vwpa holding that attorneys fees and court costs are recoverable under general hold harmless indemnity agreement holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered holding that drug buy money advanced by the government is not recoverable under the vwpa holding that although attorneys fees are usually not recoverable unless permitted by statute or contract contractual or statutory authorization was not necessary in a malpractice claim to recover attorneys fees and costs as damages