While Elberon Bathing, the New Jersey Supreme Court's landmark 1978 decision, was the case that indisputably established the Broad Evidence Rule of actual cash value as the law of the State of New Jersey, it was preceded by the often cited trial decision of Messing v. Reliance Ins. Messing was brought as a petition to appoint an umpire for appraisal. Messing, like McAnarney was guided by the principles of indemnification in pointing out the problems with any rigid measure of actual cash value. Guided by the principle of indemnity, the inquiry as to actual cash value should be directed toward ascertaining what amount of money will place the insured in the same position he would have been in had nor fire occurred. The shortcomings of both market value and replacement cost less depreciation as sole criteria for determining values have been pointed out by the courts.
Value is a matter of opinion.
The adoption of an invariable test of value would only serve to shackle sound opinion in a situation where other factors may overcome or qualify its influence. This cannot be done in the name of speedy and simple administration. Messing at 187 A.2d 51. Many claims are adjusted simply by agreeing on an amount for each of the factors and then averaging them together, affording each equal weight. This practice has grown out of the fact that the Broad Evidence Rule is as difficult to apply in negotiation as it is simple to explain.