Deutsch Kerrigan Article /
The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims
Peter-Raymond Graffeo
share this page
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Ngoc Troung v. Marcus Dewayne Sanders,[1] recently held that third-party tortfeasors, and their insurers, cannot rely on “betterment” to reduce recoverable damages. Betterment is a legal principle premised on the idea that property owners should not be placed in an improved position from where they were pre-accident. Instead, under the betterment theory, property owners should be placed “in the position [they] would have occupied if the injury complained of had not been inflicted.”[2] When property is damaged, the goal should be to “restore the property as nearly as possible to the state it was in immediately preceding the damage.”[3] Put another way, the betterment doctrine prevents property owners from receiving a financial windfall by limiting damages to restoring the property to its original, bargained-for condition, not allowing upgrades or improvements beyond the original contract.
Even though the betterment doctrine typically arises in construction defect cases, here the Supreme Court reviewed its application in a car accident matter. In Troung, the third-party tortfeasor rear-ended the plaintiff, and as a result of the collision, the exhaust system and a tire needed to be replaced on the plaintiff’s vehicle. Due to safety concerns, the repair shop utilized new parts instead of comparable used parts with similar wear and tear. Relying on the betterment theory, the tortfeasor’s insurer deducted amounts for the wear and tear on the pre-existing exhaust and tire.
After payment for the full repair was not provided, the car’s owner filed suit arguing that “Louisiana law does not provide for ‘betterment’ and does not permit a [tortfeasor’s] liability insurer to withhold any amounts from the full amount of money required to fix the damages caused to a tort victim’s vehicle.”
The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed – within the context of claims for negligence arising out of La. C.C. art. 2315. Specifically, the high court stated that under La. C.C. art. 2315, an at-fault tortfeasor “is obliged to ‘repair [the damaged property],’” and “[i]f the vehicle cannot be fixed with used parts. . . new parts are necessary to ‘repair it’” so that the vehicle can be returned to service. Importantly, the court also noted that “[t]he work the repair shop completed did not go ‘beyond repair or restoration’” and further added that failing to fully restore the vehicle would “place [the plaintiff] in a worse position than before the accident.”
While the court clearly precluded third-party tortfeasors from relying on betterment, it did not preclude the betterment doctrine from contractual disputes. That is because while Louisiana tort law currently has no statutory authority for betterment, Louisiana contract law does under La. C.C. art. 1995, which states that “[d]amages are measured by the loss sustained by the obligee and the profit of which he has been deprived.”
Courts throughout Louisiana have interpreted this codal article to mean that “[t]he measure of damages for a breach of contract is the sum that will place plaintiff in the same position as if the obligation had been fulfilled,” with the Louisiana Supreme Court adding that “[d]amages, then, are the judicial remedy whereby money replaces the obligation that was not performed.”[4] The theory is further reinforced with La. C.C. art. 1998, which generally precludes nonpecuniary damages for breaches of contract, except in very limited circumstances.[5]
Construction disputes are predominantly contractual in nature, and it is imperative that counselors view damages through the betterment lens. Project owners only have to pay for things once and defective construction and/or design does not entitle them to free upgrades. For example, a roofing contractor that builds a leaking roof that cannot be repaired with anything less than a new roof should only pay in damages the value of the original contract price for the roof. Payment of the contract price “replaces the obligation that was not performed.” Requiring the roofing contractor to return the original contract price and pay for a new roof would place the owner in an improved position, constituting betterment.[6]
Ultimately, whether in tort or in contract, the intended goal of the betterment doctrine in property damage claims is to keep the focus where it belongs – on restoring property, not enhancing it.
[1] Ngoc Troung v. Marcus Dewayne Sanders, 2025-C-00169 (La. 12/18/2025).
[2] Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of New Orleans v. Louisiana Gas Serv. Co., 618 So.2d 874, 876 (La.1993).
[3] Id. (quoting Coleman v. Victor, 326 So.2d 344, 346 (La.1976)).
[4] Gloria's Ranch, L.L.C. v. Tauren Expl., Inc., 2017-1518, p. 21 (La. 6/27/18); 252 So.3d 431, 445; see also LAD Servs. of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Superior Derrick Servs., L.L.C., 2013-0163, p. 19 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/14); 167 So.3d 746, 761, writ not considered, 2015-0086 (La. 4/2/15); 162 So.3d 392; Dixie Roofing Co. of Pineville, Inc. v. Allen Par. Sch. Bd., 95-1526, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96); 690 So.2d 49, writ denied, 96-2084 (La. 11/8/96); 683 So.2d 276, and writ denied, 96-2100 (La. 11/8/96); 683 So.2d 277; Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Bourgeois, 355 So.2d 597, 600 (La. Ct. App.1978); and Apache Deepwater, L.L.C. v. W&T Offshore, Inc., 930 F.3d 647, 658 (5th Cir.2019).
[5] See also Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., 332 So.2d 433, 435 (La.1976).
[6] See Stream v, LeJeune, 352 So.2d 714 (La. Ct. App. 1977); and Nicholson & Loup, Inc. v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc., 596 So.2d 374, 378 (La. Ct. App.1992), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1098 (La.1992), and writ denied, 605 So.2d 1098 (La.1992).
