Case Title: Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. Troutman Oil Company, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
WOODLINE MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. v. TROUTMAN OIL
COMPANY, INC. and Jerry Crosland, d/b/a
Jerry's One Stop

96-1084                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered March 3, 1997


1.   Interest -- award of prejudgment interest -- award not
     dependant on whether action is in tort or contract. -- An
     award of prejudgment interest is not dependent on whether the
     action is in contract or tort. 

2.   Interest -- award of prejudgment interest -- allowable where
     exact amount of damages is definitely ascertainable. --
     Prejudgment interest is not recoverable on claims that are
     neither liquidated as a dollar sum nor ascertainable by fixed
     standards; prejudgment interest is allowable where the amount
     of damages is definitely ascertainable by mathematical
     computation, or if the evidence furnishes data that makes it
     possible to compute the amount without reliance on opinion or
     discretion. 

3.   Interest -- appellee's damages could not be computed without
     reliance on opinion or discretion -- trial court erred in
     awarding prejudgment interest. -- Where it was impossible to
     compute the amount of appellee's damages without reliance on
     opinion or discretion, there was conflicting testimony as to
     whether the building needed to be completely torn down, or
     whether part of the structure could have been repaired, and
     the estimates to repair or replace appellee's building varied
     substantially, indicating that, at the time of the loss, the
     amount due appellee was neither liquidated as a dollar sum nor
     ascertainable by fixed standards, the trial court erred in
     awarding prejudgment interest.  

4.   Interest -- second appellee relied on subjective opinion
     regarding value of items damaged -- amount due him was not
     liquidated as a dollar sum. -- Where the second appellee
     personally assigned a figure representing the cost to each
     item, he relied on subjective opinion regarding value, so
     that, at the time of the loss, the amount due him was not
     liquidated as a dollar sum or ascertainable by fixed
     standards.

5.   Interest -- trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest
     -- trial court reversed and remanded. -- Where the trial court
     erred in awarding prejudgment interest on the property damages
     awarded to appellees, the judgment of the trial court was
     reversed and remanded.  

     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; David Bogard, Judge;
reversed and remanded.
     Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by:  James C. Baker, Jr., for
appellant.
     Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., by:  Scott M.
Strauss and G. Spence Frike, and Cook, Whitaker & Associates, by: 
Larry Cook, for appellee Troutman Oil Co., Inc. 
     Ramsay, Bridgforth, Harrelson & Starling, by:  Phillip A.
Raley, for appellee Jerry Crosland.

     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     The sole issue presented in this negligence case is whether
the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on the
property damages awarded to appellees Troutman Oil Company, Inc.,
and Jerry Crosland, d/b/a Jerry's One Stop.  The resolution of this
issue requires us to examine and clarify the law on prejudgment
interest in Arkansas.  After a thorough review of the history of
our jurisprudence on this subject, we hold that the trial court
erred in awarding prejudgment interest where the appellees' claims
were neither liquidated nor ascertainable by fixed standards. 
Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
     The facts in this case are undisputed.  On March 11, 1992,
Lattermore Belcher was driving his automobile near the intersection
of Seventh and Cypress Streets in North Little Rock when he
collided with a tractor-trailer driven by William Moore, an
employee of appellant Woodline Motor Freight, Inc.  Due to the
impact of the collision, Moore lost control of his rig and crashed
into a convenience store and gas station owned by Troutman Oil and
leased by Crosland.  The building and its contents were destroyed. 
Troutman and Crosland sued Belcher and Woodline for negligence. 
Troutman claimed $202,000.00 in property damage and $175,500.00 in
lost profits, while Crosland claimed $31,426.05 in property damage
and $150,000.00 in lost profits.  At trial, Belcher was found to be
80 percent at fault and Woodline 20 percent at fault.  The jury
returned a special verdict awarding Troutman $100,000.00 for
property damage and $15,000.00 for lost profits, and Crosland
$31,426.05 for property damage and $24,000.00 for lost profits.  
     Following a hearing on the issue of prejudgment interest, the
trial court entered judgment February 20, 1996, awarding
prejudgment interest on the property damage at the rate of six
percent per annum.  As a result, Troutman was awarded an additional
$23,000.00, and Crosland an additional $7,232.30.  On appeal,
Woodline argues that the prejudgment interest should not have been
allowed because (1) the underlying case is a tort case; (2) the
amount of damages was not immediately ascertainable at the time of
loss; and (3) the award constitutes a double recovery.
     We cannot deny that the issue of prejudgment interest has been
a confusing area in our jurisprudence.  See Red Lobster Inns, Etc.
v. Lawyer Title Ins., 656 F.2d 381 (8th Cir. 1981).  Indeed, like
other courts, we have struggled with this subject over the years. 
In our very early cases, we followed the rule that, if the damaged
or destroyed property had a market value, or other definite
standards of determining the value, at the time of loss, damage or
destruction, prejudgment interest was allowable.  Crow v. State, 23
Ark. 684 (1861); Kelly v. McDonald, 39 Ark. 387 (1882); and St.
Louis I.M. & S. Ry. v. Biggs, 50 Ark. 169, 6 S.W. 724 (1887).  
     In 1961, we announced the rule that prejudgment interest was
not allowable in tort actions. See Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins.
Co. v. Hardin, 233 Ark. 1011, 351 S.W.2d 158 (1961).  We followed
that rule in Members Mutual Ins. Co. v. Blissett, 254 Ark. 211,