 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoskins .v Business Men's Assurance6/30/2003
have had earlier but for the delays in litigation. The focus with regard to punitive damages is on punishing the defendant, not making the plaintiff whole. Accordingly, a judgment awarding prejudgment interest on punitive damages is wholly incompatible with the purposes behind prejudgment interest. To hold that by use of the broad terms of "claim" and "judgment" in section 408.040.2, our legislature intended to allow for prejudgment interest on a punitive damages award would effect an unreasonable, implausible or illogical result in light of the statute's purpose, which this court will not do. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment awarding prejudgment interest on the punitive damages award.
Point granted.
Conclusion
The trial court did not err: in submitting Mr. Hoskins' claim for punitive damages to the jury; in refusing to declare a mistrial or reopen the evidence after the case had been submitted and the jury had retired for deliberations; or in not allowing Defendants to introduce evidence to rebut Plaintiffs' final closing argument in the second punitive damages phase of the bifurcated trial. The trial court did, however, err in awarding prejudgment interest on the punitive damages award, so that award is reversed. Thus, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|