Opinion ID: 1405600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Bartgis is entitled to post-judgment interest on punitive damages

Text: In her cross-appeal, Bartgis argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for post-judgment interest on the punitive damage award pursuant to NRS 17.130. [9] We agree. Although Allianz and Wohlers assert that Bartgis is not entitled to post-judgment interest on punitive damages pursuant to our decision in Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co., 105 Nev. 237, 244, 774 P.2d 1003, 1009 (1989) (concluding that an award of post-judgment interest on punitive damages would not further the underlying purposes and policies of punitive damages), we have recently modified our Ainsworth decision. In Powers v. USAA, 114 Nev. 79, 962 P.2d 596 (1998), we held that NRS 17.130 allowed for post-judgment interest on punitive damages on the reasoning that such damages comprise part of a prevailing plaintiff's judgment as defined by NRS 17.130. Id. at ___ _ ___, 962 P.2d at 605. In concluding that NRS 17.130 allowed for post-judgment interest on punitive damages, and in modifying our Ainsworth decision, we explained that [t]he purpose of post-judgment interest is to compensate the plaintiff for loss of the use of the money awarded in the judgment `without regard to the elements of which that judgment is composed.' Id. at ___, 962 P.2d at 605 (quoting Air Separation v. Lloyd's of London, 45 F.3d 288, 290 (9th Cir.1995)). Accordingly, pursuant to our decision in Powers, Bartgis is entitled to post-judgment interest on her punitive damage award. [10]