Opinion ID: 1198908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commencement of prejudgment interest

Text: PCI separately challenges the trial court's determination setting December 18, 1985, as the date that prejudgment interest began to accrue. On that date, PCI submitted its cost-overrun claim to the City of Seward. PCI claims that the date should properly have been January 7, 1985, the date it first incurred damages from A/H's misrepresentations. Damages normally carry interest from the time a cause of action accrues. See State v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 266, 274 (Alaska 1970). A cause of action for misrepresentation in a business transaction is complete when the injured person has ... suffered pecuniary loss or has incurred liability as a result of a misrepresentation. Austin v. Fulton Ins. Co., 444 P.2d 536, 539 (Alaska 1968) (citing Restatement of Torts § 899 cmt. c (1939)). In the present case, the record provides no clear indication of the date when PCI first suffered pecuniary loss resulting from A/H's negligence and misrepresentation. Construction of the powerline occurred over many months, and PCI incurred costs over the entire period of construction. PCI's attempts to link specific cost increases to specific acts of negligence or misrepresentation were imprecise, and the submission of its overrun claim marked the first point at which its construction-related losses were clearly shown to have been incurred. The construction-related damages awarded by the jury were pegged to no particular event or expenditure. And a major part of the jury verdict covered the City's and PCI's arbitration expenses, which accrued after the construction project was completed. Under these circumstances, trying to determine exactly when PCI actually suffered the losses that the jury found compensable would be a futile endeavor. We are not persuaded that the trial court erred in selecting the date of PCI's cost-overrun claim as the date of commencement for prejudgment interest.