 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medical Protective Co. v. Watson3/29/2005
{ } Plaintiff-appellant, Medical Protective Company ("MPC"), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas finding it liable to pay prejudgment interest in excess of its policy limits. MPC assigns a single error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #1:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MEDICAL PROTECTIVE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEES KARIN WATSON, KENNETH CAHILL, M.D., AND OPHTHALMIC SURGEONS AND CONSULTANTS OF OHIO, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Because the trial court properly determined MPC was responsible for paying the award of prejudgment interest, we affirm.
{ } On February 22, 2002, a jury found defendants-appellees, Dr. Kenneth Cahill and his corporation, Ophthalmic Surgeons of Ohio, Inc. ("OSO"), negligent in the medical treatment of defendant-appellee, Karin M. Watson. Following deductions for Watson's comparative fault, the jury's award of $5.65 million for Watson's nearly total loss of vision in her left eye and significant vision loss in her right eye was in excess of the $4 million in medical malpractice insurance covering Dr. Cahill and OSO pursuant to two medical malpractice policies MPC issued to them.
{ } The trial court subsequently awarded Watson prejudgment interest based on MPC's failure to make a good-faith effort to settle the case. MPC refused to pay any prejudgment interest, but instead filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that since it paid its policy limits of $4 million, it was not liable for any prejudgment interest. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found in favor of Watson, Dr. Cahill, and OSO and ordered MPC to pay the prejudgment interest award.
{ } In its single assignment of error, MPC contends the trial court erred in declaring MPC responsible for payment of the prejudgment interest award when its policies unambiguously provide that its limit of liability under the two policies is $4 million, including any prejudgment interest.
{ } Appellate review of a granted summary judgment motion is de novo. Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162. "When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court." Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp. (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 100, 103. MPC's appeal presents no factual disputes, but only issues of law.
{ } The common law right to prejudgment interest is well recognized in Ohio. Miller v. Gunckle, 96 Ohio St.3d 359, 2002-Ohio-4932, at . The policy behind awarding prejudgment interest is to "encourage prompt settlement of claims, prevent prolonged litigation, and to compensate and make the injured party whole." Id. The possibility of such an award further is meant to "prevent parties who have engaged in tortious conduct from frivolously delaying the ultimate resolution of cases, and to encourage good faith efforts to settle controversies outside a trial setting." Kalain v. Smith (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 157, 159; Miller v. Leesburg (Dec. 1, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APE10-1379.
{ } R.C. 1343.03(C) provides for prejudgment interest, specifying that if "the court determines at a hearing held subsequent to the verdict or decision in the action that the party required to pay the money failed to make a good faith effort to settle the case and that the party to whom the money is to be paid did not fail to make a good faith effort to settle the case, interest on the judgment, decree, or order shall be computed" as set forth in the statute.
{ } Here, the trial court awarded pr
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|