SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-6008-17T3

 A-6011-17T3

 A-0416-18T3

 A-0669-18T3

NISSAN INFINITI LT,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NICOLE G. DEJESUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JULIE A. DENGLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE

TRUST,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-6008-17T3

v.

ROY G. WILKINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE

TRUST,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JORDAN P. FELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

Argued June 4, 2019 – Decided June 18, 2019

Before Judges Fisher and Suter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Docket Nos. SC-001247-18, 

SC-001252-18, SC-001246-18, and SC-001528-18.

Timothy P. Smith argued the cause for appellants 

Nicole DeJesus, Julie A. Dengler, Roy G. Wilkinson, 

and Jordan P. Feld (Kinney Lisovicz Reilly & Wolff 

PC, attorneys; Timothy P. Smith, of counsel and on the 

briefs).

Kari B. Samuels argued the cause for respondents

Nissan Infiniti LT, Santander Consumer USA and

Financial Services Vehicle Trust (Goldfein Claims 

Management, attorneys; Kari B. Samuels, on the 

briefs).
3

A-6008-17T3

PER CURIAM

In these four appeals, which we consolidated for disposition in a single 

opinion, we consider some of the same issues we previously rejected in Financial 

Services Vehicle Trust v. Panter, 458 N.J. Super. 244 (App. Div. 2019). There, 

we found that the owner of a leased vehicle, which was damaged by a 

defendant's negligence, is entitled to pursue a claim for the vehicle's reduction 

in value caused by the stigma of having its accident history revealed in databases 

like CarFax. Id. at 249-50. Like the plaintiffs in Panter, plaintiffs here provided 

expert evidence to support their claims that even though the vehicles were 

restored to their pre-accident function and condition, their resale value was

reduced by their accident histories. In adhering to our prior decision, we 

conclude that these damage claims were viable and that defendants' arguments 

that the recovery is too speculative to be legally countenanced are without merit.

In each of these nonjury, small claim cases, the trial judge rendered 

judgments in favor of the vehicle owners on this diminution theory. In 

Santander Consumer USA v. Dengler, the judge found in favor of plaintiff on 

this claim and entered judgment in the amount of $950. The judge made similar 

rulings and entered judgments in the other three cases in favor of plaintiffs in 

similar amounts.
4

A-6008-17T3

In appealing these judgments, each defendant argues that: (1) because the 

vehicle was restored to its pre-accident appearance and condition, there could 

be no further recovery; and (2) plaintiff's expert was erroneously permitted to 

provide a net or personal opinion. As noted, we expressed our view of the legal 

sufficiency of the identical diminution issue raised in Panter. For those reasons, 

we reject defendants' similar arguments in these appeals.

In Panter, we also rejected arguments about the sufficiency of the expert 

testimony there offered. Id. at 257-59. The similar arguments posed here are 

indistinguishable and are rejected for the same reasons expressed in Panter.

All the other arguments posed by these defendants are of insufficient merit 

to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

The judgments under review in these four appeals are affirmed.