Is a plaintiff entitled to restitution for the full retail value of goods that were stolen from a department store?

^4. Appellant's reliance on People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Chappelone) is misplaced. In Chappelone, the appellate court reversed as an improper windfall a trial court's restitution award to a department store based on the full retail value of the stolen merchandise, which was mostly damaged and unsellable to begin with. (Id. at p. 1173.) The award "was not reflective of [the merchandise's] [actual] value" to the store, and should have been based on the "'replacement cost of like property.'" (Ibid.; see also id. at pp. 1176-1177.) Furthermore, the trial court in Chappelone had wrongfully ordered the merchandise be returned to the store, which ultimately donated the merchandise at a total loss: "a victim is not entitled to restitution for the value of property that was returned to him or her, except to the extent there is some loss of value to the property." (Id. at pp. 1168, 1180.) In contrast, the restitution award here was based on the fair market value of the vehicle, and was not an improper windfall. Amiel did not regain ownership of the vehicle when it was recovered, because he had already transferred title to the insurance company, and thus was not precluded from restitution. The Chappelone court was not concerned with the main issue on appeal here: whether the victim was entitled to restitution when he had already received compensation from his insurer.