Opinion ID: 166639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Date from which Interest Would Run

Text: 58 For a prejudgment interest award to be proper under Utah law, not only must damages be calculable within a mathematical certainty, but also the amount of loss [must be] fixed as of a particular time. Lefavi, 994 P.2d at 823; see also Cornia v. Wilcox, 898 P.2d 1379, 1387 (Utah 1995) (Where the damage is complete and the amount of the loss is [measurably] fixed as of a particular time . . . interest should be allowed from that time . . . .) (emphasis added, quotations omitted). 59 In this case, because Pro Axess never established the date on which it suffered damages — the date from which prejudgment interest should run — an award of prejudgment interest is not proper. In the above-mentioned October 2000 affidavit and May 2001 Pretrial Order, Pro Axess asserted that prejudgment interest should be calculated from July 31, 1995, which was the initial shipping date for the sunglasses frames. At trial, Pro Axess asserted that the July 31 shipping date had been canceled by mutual agreement and that as late as spring 1996 there was still no agreement as to the shipping date. Thus, Pro Axess's position at trial implies that it did not sustain damages on July 31, 1995. Because there was no special verdict form requesting that the jury set a date for the beginning of the running of prejudgment interest, the jury did not make a finding as to that issue. 13 Pro Axess's post-trial motion for prejudgment interest asserted that June 1, 1995 was the date from which prejudgment interest should run. Therefore, it is unclear whether interest should be calculated from June 1, 1995, as Pro Axess now maintains; July 31, 1995, as Pro Axess earlier maintained; or some other date entirely, as is implied by Pro Axess's earlier assertion that the order had been delayed from July 31, 1995 by mutual agreement of the parties. This uncertainty renders the award of prejudgment interest improper under Utah law. 60 For all these reasons, the district court did not err in declining to award prejudgment interest to Pro Axess.