- 8 -
verdict is rendered or a decision made for pecuniary damages".
Thus, statutory prejudgment interest is not required under Rhode
Island law if the parties settle before judgment and there is no
verdict or court decision. We are not persuaded that it is
inequitable to apply the Rozpad allocation formula here.
Although the parties in Rozpad and in Delaney did not
specifically argue this issue, the parties in those cases settled
their tort cases while their cases were on appeal. The fact that
the case was appealed did nothing to change the facts or law upon
which the clerk of the trial court based the calculation of
statutory prejudgment interest. Procedurally, Rozpad and Delaney
are indistinguishable from this case.
Petitioners point out that the Rhode Island Supreme Court
said that "judgment" in R.I. Gen. Laws section 9-21-10a is a
final judgment from which no appeal is taken or a judgment
affirmed on appeal. Lombardi v. Goodyear Loan Co., 549 A.2d
1025, 1026 (R.I. 1988). Petitioners contend that, as a result,
no amount of the settlement in this case would be allocated to
prejudgment interest under R.I. Gen. Laws section 9-21-10. We
disagree with petitioners' claim that Lombardi applies here. The
issue in Lombardi was whether the prejudgment interest rate was 6
or 12 percent. There is no dispute that the 12-percent rate
applies in this case. Rozpad v. Commissioner, supra; Delaney v.
Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011