Judge puts $15,000 price on loss of pleasure of driving an F430

Ian Mulgrew: B.C. judge puts a $15,000 price on ‘pure pleasure’

Ian Mulgrew: B.C. judge puts a $15,000 price on ?pure pleasure?

Lawrence Miller wanted $85,000 for loss of ‘great joy’ for seven months to accident at dealership. Ferrari dealer suggested $5,000

BY IAN MULGREW, VANCOUVER SUN COLUMNIST AUGUST 11, 2015


Ian Mulgrew: B.C. judge puts a $15,000 price on ‘pure pleasure’

A 2007 Ferrari F430 Spider, similar to the model owned by Vancouver clinical psychologist Lawrence Miller. After a short trial, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has awarded him $15,000 for loss of ‘pure pleasure’ after his man toy was damaged by his auto dealer.
Photograph by: STAN HONDA , AFP/Getty Images
Ah, the smell of fine leather, the guttural growl of 490 Italian horses and the wind in your hair: there really is nothing like owning a Ferrari!

How do you put a price-tag on “pure pleasure,” zero to 60-plus in four seconds?

Well, Vancouver clinical psychologist Lawrence Miller, described as “a passionate Ferrari enthusiast,” figured losing that “great joy” for seven months was worth $85,000.

Brian Ross Motorsports Corp., which does business as Ferrari Maserati and whose repairman damaged the expensive man toy, thought more like $5,000.

In what is a cautionary tale for luxury automobile owners, Miller took his 2005 Ferrari F430 F1 in for annual servicing at the Vancouver dealership in May 2013. He wouldn’t be able to take it for a ride again for a year.

During a quality-control road test, the Ferrari-certified technician “made contact” in a laneway with a parked delivery truck. The company’s general manager told Miller his pride and joy, worth about $200,000 new, had sustained “a scratch” and the firm was arranging to have it repaired.

As he was out of town, Miller told the dealer not to perform any work until he had seen the damage.

When he did, he was “shocked.”

“The Ferrari was damaged down the length of the passenger side, including damage to the rims and the passenger side mirrors,” said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jane Dardi in a ruling released Monday.

“As it turns out, the cost of the repairs was $35,644.04.”

Through what the judge called “an unfortunate series of circumstances” the car wasn’t returned from Brian Ross to Miller until December 2013. It still had not been repaired and it would take until May 9, 2014 before it was fixed to Miller’s satisfaction.

He sued for the repair costs, the loss of value to the luxury asset and the loss of his enjoyment driving a “work of art.”

The essential facts and liability were never at issue, and the two parties settled the question of depreciation and the cost of repairs before a three-day trial.

But they couldn’t decide how much losing that Ferrari feeling was worth.

The court heard evidence the daily rate for renting a similar car was $1,250, or a monthly rate of $9,381.

Miller calculated his one year’s loss at $112,572, but “all factors being considered,” said an appropriate award would be $85,000. He emphasized he was deprived of the experience of driving the vehicle through the summer of 2013.

The justice noted driving the Ferrari was Miller’s preferred pastime from which he derived “his peace of mind; the activity constitutes a form of stress relief for him. (And) renting a vehicle would be no substitute for the very special ‘pride of ownership’ of the Ferrari.”

The firm, though, pointed out Miller bought the largely handmade sports car for $134,288 in November, 2011, that $85,000 was two-thirds of the purchase price.

Dardi noted that although Miller was without the car for roughly a year, he was responsible for some of the delay.

A single man with no children who owns several vehicles, Miller had a 2002 Acura he used for meeting clients around the Lower Mainland and maintained he drove the Ferrari for “pure pleasure.”

He took the F430 out for a spin all year round but not in the rain — perhaps 20 days a month, and less frequently in the winter.

As a result, Dardi calculated his loss at only $15,000, never mind the excitement of that Formula One-derived sequential gearbox that cuts shift times down to 150 milliseconds.

She said the rental rates had not been helpful and she was hampered in determining damages because the legal principles around assessing loss of use are undeveloped.

(The decision is available on the court website at bit.ly/1IUnSrS)

[email protected]

 

I think that the price was entered in the official court decision - in fact I think it was listed as an exact figure that was rounded to $135k.

If you enter that little link at the end of the story it links to the actual court decision, which lists all the details of the decision.

The link is here:.... ( you can cut and paste this into your browser if it isn't clickable)

bit.ly/1IUnSrS

I think this decision could prove helpful to anyone who might suffer a loss with the Ferrari.

 

sorry to hear about your friend. That's really crapppy.

You are right -- this is probably more sensationalized because it's a Ferrari, but I think also, that in the details of the judgment, its referring to the car not as a traditional loss of use situation, but more so as a "loss of enjoyment", and it talked about how the Dr. used it as his primary form of stress relief, and apparently that's where the award came from.

 

Wow. It makes you really want to make sure you have a solid prenup in the event of ending up with someone like that. I wonder if he had one....

Did he ever get his Ferrari back ?

 

Holy sh##%!!

The prenup got thrown out ? How did she say it was after the marriage ? Didn't he have it signed off by lawyers ?Did he appeal ?

And the biggest question of all - how did he get the Ferrari back ?