 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
.3d 520, 525; see accord, Wightman v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 431 (once defendant has been shown to have acted with actual malice, evidence of plaintiff's comparative negligence is inadmissible); and Lambert v. Shearer (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 266 (contributory or comparative negligence is no defense to a reckless or intentional tort).
When the trial court directed a verdict that Taylor was reckless as a matter of law, it left open the question of whether Taylor's reckless conduct was the proximate cause of the accident. (Judgment Entry, August 1, 2000). Accordingly, Appellant was still able to argue that Curtis Mays proximately caused the accident when he grabbed and jerked the steering wheel. (Tr. p. 270). In light of the jury's verdict and its conclusion that Mays had not operated the vehicle, however, it obviously rejected such a theory.
In its third assignment of error, Appellant complains that, "The trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from a date before the Mays' claim became due and payable."
Appellant contends that Appellee's claim did not become "due and payable," thereby triggering the accrual of prejudgment interest under R.C. §1343.03(A), until August 2, 2000, the day the jury returned a verdict favorable to Appellee. Therefore, according to Appellant, the trial court erred by awarding Appellee prejudgment interest accruing from April 6, 1998, the date on which it formally denied Curtis Mays' parents' claim for uninsured motorist benefits arising from the death of their son. This Court cannot agree with Appellant's argument. A trial court's assessment of prejudgment interest will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Landis v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 339. Reversal of any ruling under such a deferential standard requires the reviewing court to find that it was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable, not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. Given the dictates of R.C. §1343.03(A) and case law interpreting it, we conclude that the trial court's decision was consistent with the principles set forth therein.
An insured is entitled to prejudgment interest on his uninsured motorist claim under R.C. §1343.03(A). That section, in relevant part, provides that:
"* * * when money becomes due and payable upon any* * * instrument of writing* * * and upon all judgments, decrees, and orders of any judicial tribunal for the payment of money arising out of tortious conduct or a contract or other transaction, the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum * * *." R.C. §1343.03(A).
An award of prejudgment interest is intended to encourage prompt settlement and discourage defendants from opposing and prolonging, between injury and judgment, the resolution of legitimate claims. Royal Electric Construction Corp. v. Ohio State University (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 110, 116.
A party seeking interest under this section need not demonstrate that the insurer acted in bad faith. Craig v. Grange Ins. Co. (November 5, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17675, unreported. Prejudgment interest is not intended to punish the party responsible for the underlying damages. Rather, it acts to compensate and ultimately to make the aggrieved party whole. See, McCormick, Damages (1935), 205, Section 50 et seq.; 3 Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts (1981), 150-151, Section 354(2).
To determine the amount of prejudgment interest warranted in a particular case, the trial court need only inquire whether the aggrieved party has been fully compensated. The award of prejudgment interest is solely intended to compen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|