ILNews

Justices issue 4 opinions tackling prejudgment interest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In four opinions dealing with the award of prejudgment interest under the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute, the Indiana Supreme Court found, among other things Wednesday, that the TPIS applies to an action by an insured against an insurer to recover benefits under the insured’s underinsured motorist policy.

In Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 41S01-1108-CT-515, Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote, “we hold that the TPIS does apply to UIM coverage disputes because they are properly considered ‘civil actions arising out of tortious conduct’ as required by Indiana Code Section 34-51-4-1. We also hold that, because prejudgment interest is a collateral litigation expense, it can be awarded in excess of an insured's UIM policy limits.”

Kathy Inman was involved in an automobile accident with Nicholas Shinnamon and settled with his insurer for the maximum of his liability policy. She sought an additional $50,000 from her insurer, State Farm, under her UIM policy, which State Farm denied. She then offered to settle her claim pursuant to I.C. 34-51-4-6. State Farm didn’t respond. She was awarded the $50,000 by the trial court, but the judge denied her request for prejudgment interest.

The justices upheld the trial court’s decision, which stated only “Request for interest denied.” The TPIS permits the court to award prejudgment interest but does not require it be awarded, Dickson noted. The justices found no basis to conclude the trial court abused its discretion.

In Margaret Kosarko v. William A. Padula, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel L. Herndobler, Deceased,  45S03-1206-CT-310; and Hassan Alsheik v. Alice Guerrero, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of I.A., Deceased, 45S04-1212-CT-675, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions to deny Margaret Kosarko and Alice Guerrero prejudgment interest. Kosarko was involved in an automobile accident with Daniel Herndobler and offered to settle the lawsuit, but no response was made by the defendant. Guerrero sued Dr. Hassan Alsheik for medical malpractice – and won at the trial court – following the death of her infant son after surgery.

In Kosarko, the justices held that the TPIS abrogates and supplants the common law prejudgment interest rules in cases covered by the statute and that Kosarko’s motion for interest should have been evaluated as provided in the TPIS. They sent the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the motion accordingly. Dickson noted that the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether to award the prejudgment interest and how to calculate it.

In Guerrero, the justices reversed the denial of prejudgment interest based upon a defective settlement letter. The high court found Guerrero’s letter did comply with I.C. 34-51-4-6, but it is up to the trial court as to whether it will award her prejudgment interest.

Finally, in Jacqueline Wisner, M.D. and The South Bend Clinic, L.L.P. v. Archie L. Laney, 71S03-1201-CT-7, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Archie Laney’s motion for prejudgment interest after a jury awarded her $1.75 million on a negligence lawsuit filed against Dr. Jacqueline Wisner and The South Bend Clinic. Laney’s letter did not meet the requirements for awarding prejudgment interest.

The justices also discussed the behavior of the parties’ counsel as the defendants argued that Laney’s counsel’s behavior was so unprofessional and permeated the entire trial as to prejudice it enough to warrant a mistrial.

“There were excessive objections by both counsel, over eighty by the defendant’s counsel and over thirty by plaintiff’s counsel. While objections are clearly permitted if made in good faith and on sound substantive grounds, repeated objections despite adverse rulings already made by the trial court are not appropriate. However, far more problematic for the trial judge in this case was the unnecessary sparring and outright contemptuous conduct of each attorney directed toward the other,” Justice Steven David wrote. “The record reveals at least five instances where the trial court judge had to admonish the attorneys about their behavior.”

He chastised both attorneys for acting in a manner unbecoming of the profession, writing, “The duty to zealously represent our clients is not a license to be unprofessional.”

The justices found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ request for a new trial as the conduct of the attorneys did not prevent the jury from rendering a fair and just verdict.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT