Opinion ID: 1850445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the District Court Erred in Its Computation and Assessment of Interest.

Text: A. Standard of review. The court's scope of review on the assessment of damages and interest is for corrections of errors at law. Chariton Feed & Grain, Inc. v. Harder, 369 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Iowa 1985). B. Arguments. The hospital argues that the interest on all elements of recovery except the $30,000 awarded for loss of function of body and mind and physical and mental pain and suffering should accrue from the date of the judgment, not from the date of the commencement of the action. The hospital also argues that no interest should be awarded on the portion of the damages for interest on burial expenses because that results in double interest. The damages awarded, as itemized by the jury's verdict, were as follows: Loss of value to decedent's estate $ 10,000 Interest on burial expenses 2,000 Loss of spousal support 172,000 Loss of spousal consortium 150,000 Loss of function of body and mind 6,000 Physical and mental pain and suffering 24,000 Interest on past damages accrues from the date the lawsuit was filed. Iowa Code § 668.13(1). Interest on damages awarded for future losses begins accruing on the date the judgment is entered. Iowa Code § 668.13(4). We agree with the hospital's contention that the $30,000 awarded for loss of function of body and mind and physical and mental pain and suffering was the only recovery of past damages. The other elements of damage awarded were all future damages as contemplated by section 668.13(4). The interest allowed on plaintiff's recovery must be separately computed on past and future damages in accordance with our determination. With respect to the recovery of interest on burial expenses, that element of damage is merged in and becomes part of the aggregate judgment upon which interest is properly allowed under Iowa Code section 668.13. Under that statute, interest accrues on the entire amount of the aggregate judgment, including those components that were items of interest. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that, subject to the correction of the interest award, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. All justices concur except LAVORATO, C.J., and TERNUS and WIGGINS, JJ., who take no part.