Opinion ID: 455801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Availability of Prejudgment Interest

Text: 45 Section 3287(a) provides, in pertinent part: Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled to recover interest thereon from that day. The plaintiffs claim that the value of the property damage to the aircraft was capable of being made certain by calculation. The district court agreed and awarded prejudgment interest. 46 In order for damages to be certain, it is not necessary that they be liquidated. All that is required is established or reasonably ascertainable market prices or values for the property destroyed. Lineman v. Schmid, 32 Cal.2d 204, 212, 195 P.2d 408, 413 (1948). The fact that the plaintiff prays for an amount in excess of the actual award does not render damages uncertain. Ferro v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank, 44 Cal.2d 401, 415-16, 282 P.2d 849, 857 (1955); National Farm Workers Service Center, Inc. v. Caratan, 146 Cal.App.3d 796, 811, 194 Cal.Rptr. 617, 627 (1983). 47 In this case, the damages related to the destruction of the aircraft consist of four components: (1) the base value of the aircraft, (2) the value of a spare parts kit and other material aboard the aircraft, (3) the cost of recovering the remains of those aboard the aircraft, and (4) the value of various specific features or extras on board the aircraft. The value of the first, second, and third components is undisputed. The experts disagreed only on the value of the fourth component. Thus, the following damages were undisputed: 48 Destruction of the aircraft $9,000,000 Spare parts kit, etc. 253,420 Expenses to recover remains 27,575 ---------- Total $9,280,995 49 The jury awarded $9.3 million, which was only $19,005 more than the undisputed total. $9.3 million is also the figure suggested by Jeppesen's counsel in closing argument. 50 We agree with the district court's conclusion that the damages were certain. The mere fact that the amount of damages was in dispute is not dispositive. Esgro Central, Inc. v. General Insurance Co., 20 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1062-63, 98 Cal.Rptr. 153, 158 (1971). The only disputed issue was the value of the extras. Even though the jury evidently rejected the plaintiffs' contentions regarding the extras, the remaining components had reasonably ascertainable market values. Accordingly, the damages were sufficiently certain to justify an award of prejudgment interest. See Caratan, 146 Cal.App.3d at 811, 194 Cal.Rptr. at 627. III