Court Opinion

ID: 9735658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:26:59.518349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.734595
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from that part of the majority opinion that seems to hold that compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 1988) is a prerequisite to the recovery of prejudgment interest in all situations. Rather, I would hold that the section is an addition to those cases where prejudgment interest is allowed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-104 (Reissue 1988).
The application of the conditions in § 45-103.02, specifically that of a greater recovery than demanded, will result in denial of justified prejudgment interest. If one demands a delinquent payment and subsequently sues and recovers a judgment for the delinquent payment, prejudgment interest must be denied, *396since plaintiff’s first offer of settlement is “[not] exceeded by the judgment.”
The result, I submit, is contrary to the plain intent of the statute, i.e., to encourage settlements, not to offer a boon to deadbeats.
BosLAUGHand Fahrnbruch, JJ., join in this dissent.