Opinion ID: 1272914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Recoverability of Interest Paid as Damages.

Text: On appeal, R & D argues that the district court erred in concluding it was not entitled to recover, as an element of damages, the interest it paid on funds it borrowed to make repairs to its property during the pendency of this litigation. This court has never addressed whether interest paid on borrowed funds can be recovered as damages, though the issue has previously been presented to us. [6] On that previous occasion, we declined to reach the issue because we found that the proof presented regarding damages in that case was deficient. We find no such deficiency in this case and thus are squarely presented with whether such interest is recoverable. We conclude that because the Legislature has seen fit to provide for prejudgment interest in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2004), the type of recovery sought by R & D in this case is not permitted. In support of its argument that it should be entitled to recover the interest paid on borrowed funds, R & D contends that [w]ithout an award of the interest expense, [R & D] is not made whole or compensated for losses it sustained. [7] But the purpose behind prejudgment interest statutes is to ensure that an injured party is fully compensated. [8] It is the Legislature's function through the enactment of statutes to declare what is the law and public policy. [9] Where a mechanism with the specific purpose of fully compensating a litigant exists, we decline to provide a remedy beyond that established by the Legislature. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in concluding it had erred when it initially admitted the evidence relating to the interest paid. We note that this conclusion is consistent with other jurisdictions that for various reasons have reached this same result. [10] Though we conclude the district court was correct in determining that the interest evidence was inadmissible, we agree with R & D that the district court erred in granting a new trial. In its motion for remittitur, Altech requested that the verdict be reduced by $93,780.54; R & D now stipulates that the interest costs were actually $94,395.97. Given this agreement, we conclude that Altech's motion for remittitur should have been granted and that R & D's judgment should have been reduced by $94,395.97 to $425,907.35.