 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Parichan10/31/2000
12, the court held that "section 3287, subdivision (a) applies to situations `where there is essentially no dispute between the parties concerning the basis of computation of damages if any are recoverable but where their dispute centers on the issue of liability giving rise to damage' [citation] and because there was considerable dispute between the parties concerning the relevant elements by which to compute damages, rendering them not reasonably susceptible to ready and certain calculation, prejudgment interest may not be awarded under section 3287, subdivision (a) [citation]." (Id. at p. 524.)
Finally, a recent case we find instructive on this issue is Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948, 957-962 (Wisper). In that case, a corporation sued its bank for losses resulting from the alleged negligence of the bank in dealing with one Benitez, an employee of the plaintiff who, through various means, had embezzled money intended for the corporation. After a jury trial, the jury found the defendant bank 25% responsible for the losses and the plaintiff employer 75% responsible. The plaintiff corporation contended on appeal that it should have been awarded prejudgment interest under section 3287(a). The appellate court disagreed, noting that "the policy underlying the requirement for prejudgment interest where the damages are deemed `certain' or `capable of being made certain . . .' (Civ. Code, ยง 3287) is that in situations where the defendant could have timely paid that amount and has thus deprived the plaintiff of the economic benefit of those funds, the defendant should therefore compensate with appropriate interest." (Id. at p. 962.) The court ruled that, on the facts before it, "the question of whether [the defendant bank] was responsible for any portion of the loss was hotly disputed." (Ibid.) As a result, "it is clear the amount of damage owed . . . was not subject to calculation until after the completion of a trial." (Id. at p. 961; see also Steinfeld v. Foote-Goldman Proctologic Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 13, 21.)
Just so here. As the trial court pointed out in the course of a hearing on the prejudgment interest issue, although the issue of negligence was essentially conceded when the case went to the jury, the issues of causation and damage were not at all. More particularly, whether CSAA acted "reasonably" in its $850,000 settlement and the amount of attorney's fees properly assessable against Parichan were not at all certain. As the court noted, both of these were "jury questions supported by conflicting evidence . . . from which conflicting inferences could be drawn as to the reasonableness of both categories of claimed damages. . . . [ ] What all of this shows is that the amount of damages was at the heart of the matter submitted to the jury. The key issue given to the jury was reasonableness of amounts." We agree, and hence also affirm the denial of prejudgment interest.
PUBLISHED PART
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Haerle, J.
We concur:
Kline, P.J.
Lambden, J.
Trial Court: Superior Court of San Francisco County
Trial Judge: Hon. John E. Munter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|