 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scipione v. Rose6/16/2005
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
{ } This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the trial court records and briefs of counsel.
{ } Defendant-appellant James Rose ("appellant") appeals from the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded prejudgment interest in favor of plaintiff-appellees Nicholas Scipione and Carmel Scipione ("appellees"). Finding no error in the proceeding below, we affirm.
{ } This appeal arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 10, 2000. Appellant admitted liability for the accident; however, he disputed that he was the proximate cause of the injuries and he disputed the extent of the damages. These issues were submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of appellees and awarded them $9,900.
{ } Appellees filed a timely motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(C). The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 29, 2004, and found that appellant had failed to make a good faith effort to settle the case. The trial court granted appellees' motion for prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the amount of the jury verdict from the date the cause of action accrued, June 10, 2000, to the date on which the judgment was paid, May 5, 2004.
{ } Appellant timely appeals, advancing one assignment of error for our review. The sole assignment of error reads as follows:
{ } "The trial court erred when it awarded prejudgment interest under the Ohio Revised Code Section 1343.03(C) under the facts and circumstances of this case."
{ } R.C. 1343.03(C) states: "If, upon motion of any party to a civil action that is based on tortious conduct, that has not been settled by agreement of the parties, and in which the court has rendered a judgment, decree, or order for the payment of money, 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 follows * * *."
{ } If a party meets the four requirements of the statute, the decision to allow or not to allow prejudgment interest is not discretionary; rather the trial court's determination of lack of good faith is discretionary. Moskovits v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 638. Therefore, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that appellant failed to make a good faith effort to settle this case. Id.
{ } In Kalain v. Smith (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 157, at the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated, "A party has not 'failed to make a good faith effort to settle' under R.C. 1343.03(C) if he has (1) fully cooperated in discovery proceedings, (2) rationally evaluated his risks and potential liability, (3) not attempted to unnecessarily delay any of the proceedings, and (4) made a good faith monetary settlement offer or responded in good faith to an offer from the other party. If a party has a good faith, objectively reasonable belief that he has no liability, he need not make a monetary settlement offer."
{ } " he purpose of R.C. 1343.03(C) is to encourage litigants to make a good faith effort to settle their case, thereby conserving legal resources and promoting judicial economy." Moskovits, 69 Ohio St.3d at 658, quoting Peyko v. Frederick (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 164, 167. The party seeking prejudgment interest bears the
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|