Opinion ID: 2630877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Award of prejudgment interest on entire verdict

Text: Horizon argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding the Albioses prejudgment interest on the entire verdict because the general verdict form used did not distinguish between past and future damages, and the Albioses did not object to the use of this form. We review challenges to prejudgment interest awards for error. [49] Under NRS 17.130(2), the judgment draws interest from the time of service of the summons and complaint until satisfied, except for any amount representing future damages. The general rule is that it is error to award prejudgment interest on an entire verdict if it is impossible to determine what part of the verdict represented past damages. [50] But when there is nothing in the record to suggest that future damages were included in the verdict, prejudgment interest on the entire verdict is allowed. [51] Horizon argues that the future damages the Albioses sought included move-out expenses such as motel rooms, food expenses, moving expenses, storage expenses, and kennel expenses for their dogs. The Albioses argue that theses damages are not future damages but, instead, stem from past injuries that have already occurred but have yet to be cured. We agree. Our recent decision in Shuette provides analytical assistance. There, we stated that an award of prejudgment interest on an entire verdict in a constructional defect case could be proper because the award represent[ed] only past damages[ ] ... because the damages occurred when the homes were built, regardless of when the homeowners actually made or will make necessary repairs. [52] Further, we opined that unexpended costs to repair constructional defects, which necessarily occurred early on, should be treated as past damages, even though the defects will be repaired in the future. Thus, prejudgment interest should be applied to past `abatement' damages. [53] To repair a home's constructional defects, it will often be necessary for the homeowners to first move out of the home and into temporary housing. Thus, move-out expenses, such as those sought by the Albioses, are a part of the abatement damages. Although the homeowners might not have yet repaired the home and, thus, not yet incurred move-out expenses, these damages should be treated as past damages. The district court did not err in awarding the Albioses prejudgment interest on the entire verdict.