What is the general rule regarding the cost of repairs in property damage cases?

In property damage cases, the general rule is that the cost of repairs must not exceed the market value of the property before the damage occurred. This principle is grounded in the idea that damages should put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the injury not happened, without allowing for windfalls or unjust enrichment. When determining the appropriate compensation for property damage, the courts typically look to limit the award to the lesser of the repair costs or the market value of the property at the time of the damage.

This ensures that the injured party is compensated for their loss but does not receive more than what their property was worth. The focus on market value is essential because it prevents claims for repairs that could potentially exceed the value of the property itself, which would not be justified under tort principles.

In contrast, the other options reflect misconceptions about the limitations and requirements related to damages in property cases. For example, covering all costs regardless of outcome could encourage excessive claims, repairs exceeding market value would result in overcompensation, and only claiming new items would not consider the actual damages that need repair. Thus, the principle that repair costs must not exceed the property's value is significant in maintaining fairness and accountability in tort cases related to property damage.