Opinion ID: 677570
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is Cash Flow entitled to prejudgment interest?

Text: 26 Because the Oregon Hazardous Waste Act does not provide for the recovery of prejudgment interest, the district court correctly applied the Oregon common law rule that prejudgment interest is allowed where the exact amount owed is ascertainable by simple computation or by reference to generally recognized standards and where the time from which interest must run can be ascertained. Trienco, Inc. v. Applied Theory, Inc., 794 P.2d 1239, 1243 (Or.App.1990). The allowance of interest in an equitable action is a matter of discretion. Jarrett v. United States Nat'l Bank, 768 P.2d 936, 938 (Or.App.1989). 27 The dispute regarding the allocation of liability between Unocal and Cash Flow is not sufficient to bar an award of prejudgment interest. See School District v. Mission Ins. Co., 650 P.2d 929, 943 (Or.App.1982) (the allocation of damages between the two primary insurers.... does not defeat a claim for prejudgment interest), rev' denied, 662 P.2d 725 (1983). 28 The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding prejudgment interest for the geotechnical services provided by OEM Industries, the amount of which was not disputed by Unocal and was ascertainable from the date plaintiff was billed for the services. Because Unocal also did not challenge the amount charged for the removal of the storage tanks ($17,300), and that amount was ascertainable from the billing date, the district court abused its discretion by failing to award prejudgment interest on this amount. 29 On the other hand, we agree with the district court that amounts owing for excavation and trucking, backfill, and dumping or treatment of the soil were not previously ascertainable. Every element of the remediation process was in dispute: the amount of soil removed (and backfilled), the price charged for those services, and the remedial process chosen. In order to determine these issues, the district court had to weigh conflicting evidence and expert opinion. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award prejudgment interest on these elements of the claim. Only the denial of prejudgment interest on charges for tank removal was an abuse of discretion, and will be remanded for recalculation.