Margaret Kosarko v. William A. Padula, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel L. Herndobler

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Indiana's Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute abrogates and supplants common-law rules requiring damages to be complete and ascertainable in cases within the statute's scope. The court reversed the trial court's denial of Margaret Kosarko's motion for prejudgment interest because the denial was based on the abrogated common-law standard. It remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion under the statute regarding whether to award interest, the rate and period of accrual, and the amount on which interest should be calculated.

Holdings

1. The Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute abrogates and supplants the common-law rules governing the availability of prejudgment interest in cases within the statute's scope.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by applying the abrogated common-law requirement that damages be complete and ascertainable.
3. The matter must be remanded to the trial court to exercise its discretion under the TPIS; the Court of Appeals could not order the full requested amount because the trial court had not yet applied the statutory criteria.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Indiana's Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute abrogates and supplants the common-law requirement that damages be complete and ascertainable before prejudgment interest may be awarded in covered tort actions.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying prejudgment interest based on the common-law ascertainability rule.
3. Whether the case should be remanded for the trial court to exercise its statutory discretion regarding entitlement, rate, accrual period, and amount of prejudgment interest.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded