Michelle and Timothy McIntire sued Misty Perkins for damages arising from the total loss of their vehicle after a collision. Among other things, the McIntires sought to recover damages “related to their contract with Honda Financial Services regarding the original loan to finance their wrecked vehicle in the amount of $9,294.90.” The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Perkins as to that claim. The McIntires appeal, challenging the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. But because the McIntires had already been compensated for the fair market value of their vehicle and they are not entitled to damages in excess of that value, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hutto v. CACV of Colo., 308 Ga. App. 469 707 SE2d 872 2011. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in favor of the nonmovant. Id. So construed, the evidence shows that on November 25, 2008, Michelle McIntire was stopped at a red light in her family’s van when Perkins ran into the back of it with her vehicle. As a result of the collision, the McIntires’ vehicle was deemed a total loss and they received insurance proceeds of approximately $23,000 for the fair market value of the vehicle. At the time of the collision, the McIntires were “upside-down” on the loan they had taken out to finance the vehicle, owing more than the van was worth, with a difference of $9,294.90 between the fair market value and the outstanding loan balance.