Opinion ID: 1135240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: part iii. prejudgment interest

Text: The trial court in rendering judgment added prejudgment interest to the verdict of the jury from the date appellee's petition was filed against appellant to the date of verdict. 12 O.S. 1991, § 727(A)(2) provides in pertinent part as follows: When a verdict for damages by reason of personal injuries ... is accepted by the trial court, the court in rendering judgment shall add interest on said verdict at a rate prescribed pursuant to subsection B of this section from the date the suit was commenced to the date of verdict... . Appellant argues § 727(A)(2) is inapplicable to the instant suit because it is based on a contract of insurance and is not a suit for damages by reason of personal injuries. We believe appellant is incorrect. [7] Appellant does not dispute that in a suit directly against a tortfeasor brought to recover damages for personal injuries caused by an automobile accident it would be appropriate for the trial court to add prejudgment interest under § 727(A)(2) to a jury verdict adverse to the tortfeasor. The express language of the provision would mandate applicability in such a situation as in others where recovery is sought for personal injury. See e.g. Fleming v. Baptist General Convention, 742 P.2d 1087, 1090 and 1096 (Okla. 1987) (prejudgment interest recoverable against tortfeasor in action to recover for negligent medical attention). There is further no doubt a suit to recover for wrongful death is one to recover damages for personal injuries and it is appropriate to award prejudgment interest under § 727 in such proceedings. Holland v. Dolese Co., 643 P.2d 317, 324 (Okla. 1982); See also Cartwright v. Atlas Chemical Industries, 593 P.2d 104, 120-122 (Okla. Ct. App., Div. 1, 1978). In our view, although it is true the reason appellant is liable to pay monetary relief here at all is based on its contractually based duty to pay under the UM endorsement of the policy, the damages it is required to pay under that policy are unquestionably by reason of personal injuries. Although the prejudgment interest under § 727(A)(2) is not an element of damages submitted to the jury for their consideration, it is a legislatively mandated monetary recovery in cases brought to recover for personal injuries. Fleming v. Baptist General Convention, supra, 742 P.2d at 1096. [8] UM coverage is itself nothing less than coverage to provide monetary relief for bodily injury or death (i.e. by reason of personal injuries) to the extent the tortfeasor who is uninsured or underinsured or who may be unknown in the case of a hit and run accident, is not in a position to pay the damages due the victim. 36 O.S. 1981, § 3636. UM coverage merely provides a source of recovery for personal injuries when an innocent victim cannot otherwise recover from the tortfeasor. We believe, in that the tortfeasor would be liable for prejudgment interest the UM carrier is likewise liable therefore and a suit to recover for bodily injury or death against a UM carrier is one intended to be covered by § 727(A)(2) because such a suit is in essence nothing other than a suit to recover for personal injuries. [9]