Generally, a victim of property damage is entitled to be placed in the position he or she would have been in if the defendant’s wrong had never occurred. Tort Law § 13.11, at 429 (3d ed. 2005). A fundamental principle on which the rule of damages is based is compensation. Compensation is that amount of money that reasonably will make the injured party whole. Compensatory damages may not exceed this amount. Anything beyond that amount is a windfall. Kattar v. Demoulas, 433 Mass. 1 , 15 (2000).

Jarrett McGilloway et al. v. Safety Insurance Company and the Commerce Insurance Company COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT:
 

The Supreme Judicial Court differentiated part 4 from part 7 (a first party claim for collision coverage) of the 2008 Edition of the standard Massachusetts auto policy, and held that inherent diminished value is recoverable under a third party claim for damages under part 4 of the 2008 Edition of the standard policy. The Supreme Judicial Court noted that not every automobile that is involved in a collision and is subsequently repaired has suffered diminished value. “Rather, individualized proof is required to demonstrate that a given automobile has sustained some form of diminution in value due to a collision or vehicular accident, even after repairs are made.” A Plaintiff would still need to prove (1) that his or her vehicle has suffered inherent diminished value damages and (2) the amount of diminished value damages at issue.
 

Massachusetts policies written after January 1, 2018 are based on the 2016 Edition of the Standard Massachusetts Automobile Insurance Policy and those polices contain the unfavorable wording that goes against diminished value compensation for third-party accident victims.

A DV Claim can be filed, however there are no guarantees that if it goes to court a favorable outcome for the plaintiff