Opinion ID: 157699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interest on Damages

Text: The landowners finally argue that the district court abused its discretion both by not allowing the landowners to claim interest as an element of damages - 15 - and in failing to award prejudgment interest on the damages recovered by the landowners. We review the district court’s decision as to prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion. See Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 156 F.3d 1057, 1067 (10th Cir. 1998). Although prejudgment interest is not generally allowed on a claim for unliquidated damages, in Lightcap v. Mobil Oil Corp. , 562 P.2d 1, 16 (Kan. 1977), the Kansas Supreme Court carved out an exception to this rule in which the court may, in its discretion, award interest or its equivalent as an element of damages where necessary to arrive at fair compensation. See also Farmers State Bank v. Production Credit Ass’n , 755 P.2d 518, 528 (Kan. 1988). In its ruling on the landowners’ claim for prejudgment interest, the district court stated: Clearly, the general rule is that prejudgment interest is only available where the damages are liquidated. There is no dispute here that the damages were unliquidated. Insofar as plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment is concerned, however, the court concludes that it has some discretion in determining whether or not to award prejudgment interest. After considering the facts of this case, the court concludes that plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. For one thing, the court finds that Northern’s conduct in this case was neither willful nor so egregious as to weigh in favor of such an award. In this regard, the court notes there was no evidence to suggest that the initial migration of gas onto plaintiffs’ property was anything other than accidental. Moreover, the court concludes that the jury’s award in this case adequately compensates plaintiffs for the injury suffered and that prejudgment interest is not required to make them whole. Aple. Brief, app. B at 5-6 (citations omitted). Under the abuse of discretion - 16 - standard, the district court will be reversed only if it “made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co. , 164 F.3d 511, 514 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). Not only did the court not abuse its discretion in not allowing the landowners to claim interest as an element of damages and in not awarding prejudgment interest, its rulings were eminently reasonable and just. AFFIRMED. - 17 -