Mary D. Miller (“Miller”) prevailed on a claim filed in Vanderburgh Superior Court for medical malpractice against Thomas K. Hupfer (“Hupfer”). She filed a motion for prejudgment interest, which the trial court granted. Hupfer appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded prejudgment interest to Miller.
Conclusion (slip op. at 6): The trial court was within its discretion to award prejudgment interest at a rate of 8%. Affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 3, 5): Since this case is a tort case, TPIS applies and preempts common law prejudgment interest . . . TIPS does not apply if the amount of the offer exceeds one and 1/3 of the amount of the judgment. Since the demand did not exceed one and 1/3 of the amount of the judgment, the statute applies . . . TPIS states that a “court may award prejudgment interest as part of a judgment.” Also, TPIS applies to “any civil action arising out of tortious conduct.” Miller complied with the requirements of the TPIS; therefore, the trial court acted within its discretion when it awarded prejudgment interest.
DisclaimerADVERTISING MATERIAL www.boselaw.com/disclaimer
- Amish Litigants Forced to Honor Agreement
- Indiana Appellate Civil Case Law Summary (May 2012)
- U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down FCC’s Indecency Determinations Against Fox And ABC
- Indiana Appellate Civil Case Law Summary (February 2012)
- Extraordinary Stay Against Newspaper Publication Should Raise Concern
- absolute privilege Advertising Injury Alternative Fee amish anonymous speech Antitrust Appeals Boehm Censorship CERCLA Class Actions Commercial Lines Policy Communications Law Defamation Discovery discovery tools Duty to Defend environmental cleanup FCC First Amendment Free Speech Indecency Indiana indiana court of appeals Indiana Supreme Court Internet Law Journalist's Privilege Justice Life Insurance Media Law Newsgathering objections public utility religious Res Judicata Sevnth Circuit sewer district Shepard Technology United States Supreme Court