Court Opinion

ID: 9670165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:16:12.136158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:18.795970
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s position that plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest. This case does not involve a tort claim with unliquidated damages as was the situation in Williams v Dep’t of State Highways, 44 Mich App 51; 205 NW2d 200 (1972), and Reich v State Highway Comm, 43 Mich App 284; 204 NW2d 226 (1972).
*662Where the damages are liquidated it is a denial of full compensation to preclude interest. Therefore, I would allow plaintiffs to recover prejudgment interest as an element of damages. Banish v Hamtramck, 9 Mich App 381; 157 NW2d 445 (1968).