 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Teague-Strebeck Motors Inc. v. Chrysler Insurance Co.3/8/1999
issue by the district court.
{57} We now address the issues raised by Mills-Strebeck on its cross- appeal.
V. REPLACEMENT COSTS
{58} Mills-Strebeck contends that the district court erred in its award of damages for destruction of the dealership property. The district court awarded damages based on the actual cash value of the property destroyed. Mills-Strebeck contends that it should have been awarded the replacement cost-that is, the amount of money necessary to purchase new replacements for the lost property.
{59} We disagree. The insurance policy that was deemed to cover Mills- Strebeck's loss contains a replacement-cost provision. Under the policy, however, this provision does not apply to " roperty of others." Although we have held that Mills-Strebeck may have had an insurable interest in the dealership property destroyed by the fire, it did not have an ownership interest in the property. The insurable interest, if any, was only an expectancy. Hence, the replacement-cost provision does not apply. The district court did not err in awarding damages based on the actual cash value of the property.
VI. POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE
{60} Mills-Strebeck contends that the district court should have awarded post-judgment interest at the rate of fifteen percent per year rather than eight and three-quarters percent. It raised this issue in a post- judgment motion; but the district court did not rule on the motion, apparently because it believed that it had lost jurisdiction when Chrysler filed its notice of appeal. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 241-43, 824 P.2d 1033, 1043-45 (1992) (discussing jurisdiction of trial court after filing of notice of appeal.)
{61} Mills-Strebeck relies on NMSA 1978, ยง 56-8-4(A) (1993), which states:
"Interest shall be allowed on judgments and decrees for the payment of money from entry and shall be calculated at the rate of eight and three-quarters percent per year, unless the judgment is rendered on a written instrument having a different rate of interest, in which case interest shall be computed at a rate no higher than specified in the instrument or the judgment is based on tortious conduct, bad faith, intentional or willful acts, in which case interest shall be computed at the rate of fifteen percent." (Emphasis added.)
We agree in part with Mills-Strebeck. The portion of the judgment that awarded damages for bad faith should bear interest at the rate of fifteen percent. It was appropriate, however, for the district court to award damages at eight and three-quarters percent on the remainder of the judgment. We explain.
{62} To begin with, we do not read Section 56-8-4(A) as requiring a single post-judgment interest rate for the entire judgment. If, for example, a portion of a judgment is based on a tort cause of action and another portion is based on a contract cause of action, the interest rate on the first portion of the judgment could be fifteen percent and the interest rate on the second portion, eight and three-quarters percent. Disputes may arise regarding how to apportion a partial payment of the judgment (the judgment debtor wishing to apply payment to the tort damages, which bears the higher interest rate, and the judgment creditor preferring that the payment apply to the contract award); but we need not reach that issue here.
{63} Turning to the judgment in this case, the statute unambiguously requires that interest on the portion of the judgment awarded for bad faith be computed at fifteen percent. The more difficult question is how to categorize the remainder of the judgment. Mills-Strebeck contends th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|