Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05252/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05252-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SONNY THOMPSON, a minor, by and ) 

through his father and next friend,) 

Charlie Thompson; CHARLIE THOMPSON;) 

and LINDA THOMPSON, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

F'ILED 

United Scates C.oun of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

JUN 1 i 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-5252 

(D.C. No.89-C-362-B) 

(N. Dist. Okla.) 

HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a Florida corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Sonny Thompson won a jury verdict of $300,000 against Horace 

Mann Insurance Company, which represented the full amount of the 

uninsured motorist insurance policy at issue. The parties have 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5252 Document: 010110119392 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 1 
stipulated that Thompson's damages exceeded the $300,000 policy 

limit. The district court refused to award prejudgment interest 

because it would exceed the policy coverage. Thompson appeals and 

we affirm. 

In a diversity action, "[t]he issue of possible entitlement 

to prejudgment interest is governed by state law." McNickle v. 

Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 888 F.2d 678, 680 (10th Cir. 1989). 

We review a federal district court's determination of state law de 

novo. See Salve Regina College v. Russell, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 1221 

(1991). 

In this case, the district court ruled that under Oklahoma 

law, prejudgment interest could not be granted to the extent that 

it would result in a total award above the limits of the insurance 

policy at issue. We agree. The Oklahoma courts have clearly 

stated that prejudgment interest is an item of damages included in 

the judgment representing the sum one is legally obligated to pay 

under an insurance policy. See Curtis & Gartside Co. v. Aetna 

Life Ins. Co., 58 Okla. 470, 160 P. 465 (1916); Maryland Casualty 

Co. v. Peppard, 53 Okla. 515, 157 P. 106 (1915); Bossert v. 

Douglas, 557 P.2d 1164, 1168 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976). Accordingly, 

when an insurance company "has paid its policy limit toward 

satisfaction of the judgment, it has discharged its liability as 

to prejudgment interest." Bossert, 557 P.2d at 1168. As did the 

insurance company in Bossert, the company here has paid the full 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5252 Document: 010110119392 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 2 
► , ,,; . 

amount of the policy. Under Oklahoma law it therefore has no 

further obligation with respect to prejudgment interest. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5252 Document: 010110119392 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 3