Opinion ID: 2636635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether It Was Error To Deny Alexander Prejudgment Interest

Text: Alexander's original complaint requested prejudgment interest on his damage award. Alexander argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant prejudgment interest. He asserts that prejudgment interest should have been granted on the entire award or, alternatively, that the case should be remanded for an explanation of the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest. The state argues that prejudgment interest should not be granted on the entire award, but agrees that the case should be remanded to the trial court for determination of what portion of the verdict compensates Alexander for past losses, and for award of prejudgment interest on that amount. Prejudgment interest `should be denied only to avoid an injustice,' such as a double recovery. [14] Alaska Statute 09.30.070(c) provides that [p]rejudgment interest may not be awarded for . . . future noneconomic damages. The jury was instructed that it could award both past and future non-economic damages. The special verdict form prepared by the state and submitted to the jury did not distinguish between separate past and future non-economic damages or permit the jury to return separate awards on those two claims. As the state requests, we remand for award of prejudgment interest on the portion of the jury verdict that can be attributed to past non-economic damages. [15] We leave it to the trial court on remand to decide how to separate past and future losses, and whether additional evidence is needed. [16]