Opinion ID: 2575860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pre-offer prejudgment interest and offers of judgment

Text: In Bowyer, we also held that a claimant who fails to secure a judgment greater than a previously tendered offer of judgment may not recover awards of prejudgment interest under a court rule or statute. [14] We further concluded that prejudgment interest may not be included as part of a judgment to determine whether the judgment exceeds the offer for the purpose of relief under NRCP 68 or NRS 17.115. [15] This holding was based upon the then-current versions of the rule and statute, under which failure to obtain a judgment in excess of the offer precluded an ultimate award of any prejudgment interest. However, in 1998, this court amended NRCP 68 by promulgating NRCP 68(f)(1), which limits the loss of prejudgment interest sanction for failure to exceed an offer of judgment to loss of post-offer prejudgment interest. Going further, the Legislature amended NRS 17.115 to conform the statute to the rule. The amended versions, as noted, governed the trial below. Accordingly, although pre-offer prejudgment interest is not expressly included in the 1998/1999 comparison formula because such an award in favor of the offeree is unaffected by the failure to obtain a judgment in excess of the offer, there is no reason not to include such an award in the comparison. This is consistent with the reasoning in Bowyer. We therefore hold that pre-offer prejudgment interest may be added to the principal award as part of the comparison formula. In light of our holding today, we must also address whether the offer in this case included pre-offer prejudgment interest. We conclude that the offer should be construed against Bianco (the offeror) to allow the pre-offer prejudgment interest to be included with the judgment in comparing the judgment with the offer because the offer was inclusive of all claims and the offer did not preclude inclusion of prejudgment interest in the comparison with the offer. [16] Accordingly, the district court should have awarded pre-offer prejudgment interest and included that component as part of the judgment in making its comparison of the judgment with the offer. In light of the above, we reverse this matter with instructions to compute the amount of pre-offer prejudgment interest and include that sum in the judgment for comparison with the offer. If the principal award and pre-offer prejudgment interest exceed the offer, the district court should deny Bianco relief under NRCP 68 and NRS 17.115. In that event, the district court may conduct an analysis under NRS 18.010 or the contract to determine if fees are to be awarded. [17] If, however, the principal award and pre-offer prejudgment interest do not exceed the offer, the district court may consider granting Bianco relief after conducting an analysis under Beattie. [18] In this, the district court may not, per Bowyer, award NRS 18.010 attorney fees to the McCrarys. [19]