There is another case in the continuing saga of what can be claimed if a car is provided whilst the Claimant’s car is being repaired due to an accident involving the Defendant. The rules regarding spot rate prevail.
In the combined cases of Copley -v- Lawn and Maden -v- Haller  EWCA CI V 580 (17 June 2009), the Court of Appeal held that it is reasonable for a claimant to reject or ignore an offer from a Defendant (or his insurers) which does not set out the clear cost of the hire of the replacement car to the Defendant for the purpose of enabling the Claimant to make a realistic comparison with the cost that he is incurring or about to incur on the supply of the replacement car. Then, if the Claimant does unreasonably reject or ignore the Defendant’s offer, the Claimant can recover at least the cost which the Defendant can show he would reasonably have incurred. The Claimant does not forfeit all his damages claims. The general rule that the Claimant can recover the spot rate or market rate for his loss of use of his car is upheld by the Court of Appeal. However, if the Defendant can show that on the facts of the particular case that a car could have been provided even more cheaply than the “spot” or market rate then he will be able to show that the Claimant has not mitigated his claim.