 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buckley Powder Co. v. State12/19/2002
ion. Goodwin v. Eller, 127 Colo. 529, 258 P.2d 493 (1953); see also Bushner v. Bushner, 141 Colo. 283, 348 P.2d 153 (1959)(trial court has even greater discretion to grant or deny relief under C.R.C.P. 59(a) when the proceedings were a trial to the court instead of a jury trial).
In opposition to Buckley's C.R.C.P. 59(a) motion, the state argued the cited portions of the special master's report would not allow the trial court to calculate damages from 1990 to 1994 because this information did not establish the number of class members and the approximate size of their claims in each year, but instead assumed that overpayments by class members were directly proportional to overpayments by all carriers. Buckley responded with additional references to the special master's 1999 report and a source on which he relied to support the assumption of proportionality.
Thus, the interest calculation cannot be separated from other disputes concerning statistical damages methodology. For example, in assuming proportionality between 1990 and 1994, the special master relied on 1997 data, among other things. For the same reasons that we deferred to the trial court's findings on damages, which accepted some estimates but modified others, we cannot say that the trial court's denial of the C.R.C.P. 59(a) motion as to prejudgment interest was an abuse of discretion.
Thus, we conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to award prejudgment interest for 1990 to 1994.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE ROTHENBERG and JUDGE TAUBMAN concur.
|