 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchinson v. State Auto Insurance Co.1/30/2002
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Plaintiff-Appellant Todd A. Hutchinson has appealed from a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that found the starting date for the accrual of prejudgment interest in his underinsured motorist claim was the date of the verdict. This Court affirms.
I.
On July 6, 1998, while changing a flat tire along the side of the highway, Appellant was injured in an automobile accident. Appellant suffered significant physical injuries that were treated over the next two and a half years.
On May 30, 2000, Appellant filed suit against Defendant-Appellee State Auto Insurance Company, Frank D. Smith, the driver of the car that hit Appellant, and the State of Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation. The complaint was subsequently amended to join Westfield Insurance Company as an additional defendant. Smith's insurance carrier, Grange Insurance, settled for their limit of $50,000.
The case proceeded to trial and on April 5, 2001, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant. Following the trial, Appellant filed a motion for prejudgment interest with a starting date of July 6, 1998, the day of the accident. The trial court found that Appellant was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the verdict, April 5, 2001, rather than the date of the accident. Appellant has appealed the judgment, asserting one assignment of error.
II. Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion in holding that prejudgment interest begins on the date of the verdict.
Appellant has argued that the trial court erred in finding that the starting date for calculating prejudgment interest was the verdict date instead of the accident date. This Court disagrees.
An appellate court reviews a trial court's determination of the starting date for an award of prejudgment interest under an abuse of discretion standard. Landis v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 339, 341-42. "The term `abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State v. Wolons (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 64, 68, quoting State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157.
Even though underinsured motorist claims arise out automobile accidents, i.e., tortious conduct, the claims themselves are contractual in nature. See Landis 82 Ohio St.3d at 341. Since underinsured motorists claims are contract claims, R.C. 1343.03(A) applies when determining prejudgment interest. Id. R.C. 1343.03(A) provides that:
hen money becomes due and payable upon any * instrument of writing * and upon all judgments * 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.
Unlike R.C. 1343.03(C), which applies to actions based on tortious conduct, R.C. 1343.03(A) contains no starting date for calculating prejudgment interest. The court in Landis found that for prejudgment interest calculations, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine when a judgment became due and payable. Id. at 342. See, also, Foster v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. (Jan. 5, 2000), Summit App. No. 19464, unreported, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS at 3, appeal not allowed (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1504.
In Foster, this Court explained that "the date on which a claim becomes due and payable may, on the facts of a specific case, be the date on which the con
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|