Recent public diminished value settlements
Individual claim settlements are usually private. Class cases are easier to verify, but a proposed agreement is not final until the court approves it.
A total-loss valuation settlement is not a post-repair diminished-value settlement. A rental company refunding diminished-value charges is related, but it is not an insurer paying a vehicle owner’s DV claim.
Sanith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Final. Pierce County Superior Court, Washington, No. 18-2-06616-1. The court approved a fund up to $2,091,200 for qualifying Washington UMPD claims. The claim deadline passed November 12, 2024, and the administrator reports payments were mailed July 9, 2025.
Official settlement FAQ and status
Hardy and Santiago v. State Farm
Proposed in the public records reviewed. W.D. Washington, No. 2:25-cv-00072-RSM. Public reporting described an $8.8 million agreement for qualifying Washington UIM/UMPD claims, with payments up to roughly $800 per claim. The parties reported a fully executed agreement moving through court approval. Verify the newest docket before describing it as final.
Calderon v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC
Final, but different. S.D. Florida, No. 0:19-cv-62408-AHS. The approximately $11.07 million settlement addressed damage charges assessed against renters, including diminished value, estimated repair cost, and related fees. Final approval was entered July 16, 2025; the claim deadline passed August 15, 2025.
What was excluded from this tracker
We did not label recent State Farm Arkansas or Progressive Georgia total-loss valuation settlements as diminished-value cases. They concern the amount paid when vehicles were declared total losses, not residual value after repair.