Opinion ID: 2313703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The trial judge's denial of the plaintiffs' prejudgment interest

Text: Plaintiffs have cross-appealed the denial of their application for prejudgment interest. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs made separate written offers to settle all claims against each defendant for $1.25 million. The offer to settle provided, in relevant part: Plaintiffs are agreeable to a settlement of all of their claims against Van Buren Medical Associates and any and all of its physician employees, including Dr. Connor, for $1,250,000. An offer with the identical language was sent to counsel for CCHS. The offer was rejected. The jury awarded damages totaling $2 million, apportioning fault 40 percent for Dr. Connor and 60 percent for CCHS. Plaintiffs filed a motion for costs and prejudgment interest pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 2301(d), which provides: In any tort action for compensatory damages in the Superior Court or the Court of Common Pleas seeking monetary relief for bodily injuries, death or property damage, interest shall be added to any final judgment entered for damages awarded, calculated at the rate established in subsection (a) of this section, commencing from the date of injury, provided that prior to trial the plaintiff had extended to defendant a written settlement demand valid for a minimum of 30 days in an amount less than the amount of damages upon which the judgment was entered. [16] Thus, if the settlement demand on a defendant is less than the amount of damages awarded by the jury against that defendant, the plaintiffs can recover prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs assert that pursuant to this section, they were entitled to $469,477.44 in prejudgment interest. Defendants argued that no prejudgment interest should be awarded because the jury award, as apportioned to each individual defendant, was less than the individual settlement offer. [17] The trial judge, applying § 2301(d), found that the total pretrial settlement demand was $2.5 million. While he acknowledged that Plaintiffs could collect the entire $2 million from each defendant, he found that the apportionment of the jury verdict demonstrated that each individual defendant's liability did not exceed the settlement demand. The trial judge found that the apportionment of the jury verdict was less than the settlement demand to the individual tortfeasors and denied prejudgment interest. [18] In reaching this decision, the trial judge focused on the total amount of the settlement offers. Plaintiffs ask us to interpret the statute consistent with our interpretation of Rule 68 relating to offers of judgment. [19] Statutory interpretation rulings of a trial court are reviewed de novo. [20] In Cahall v. Thomas, [21] we explained that [a]lthough a defendant may still phrase an offer of settlement as a collective one to multiple plaintiffs, an award of costs is only available under Rule 68 where the offer is formally apportioned among each of the plaintiffs individually. [22] Plaintiffs made their demand consistent with Cahall. Under 6 Del. C. § 2301(d), interest shall be added to any final judgment entered for damages awarded ... provided that prior to trial the plaintiff had extended to defendant a written settlement demand valid for a minimum of 30 days in an amount less than the amount of damages upon which the judgment was entered. [23] The $2 million judgment in favor of Plaintiffs was a common liability of both Dr. Connor and CCHS. Thus, Plaintiffs may collect upon the full amount of the judgment from either tortfeasor. [24] The written settlement demand for each tortfeasor was for less than $2 million. [25] Although a jury apportionment of fault affects contribution among joint tortfeasors, it does not change the common liability of each tortfeasor to Plaintiffs for the entire amount of the judgment. The plain language of § 2301(d) requires that prejudgment interest be awarded when the settlement demand was less than the amount of damages upon which the judgment was entered, regardless of how the jury apportioned fault among the joint tortfeasors for purposes of contribution. Consequently, the trial judge erred in denying Plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest.