Court Opinion

ID: 9638694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:51:04.306108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:08.989672
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In our original opinion we held that Indust-Ri-Chem was not entitled to prejudgment interest because it failed to show that the date on which its damages occurred was established without controversy. On motion for rehearing, Indust-Ri-Chem points out that two invoices which are part of our record establish without controversy that the empty drums and the contaminated J-100 returned to Indust-Ri-Chem by IBM were received by Indust-Ri-Chem on May 13, 1977. Another invoice shows that the replacement shipment of J-100 was shipped to IBM on May 8, 1977. Thus In-dust-Ri-Chem asserts that it is entitled to prejudgment interest on its entire damage award because the record shows without controversy that all elements of its damages were ascertainable with reasonable certainty as of May 13,1977. We agree and modify our prior judgment by awarding Indust-Ri-Chem prejudgment interest of $2,348.69 from May 13, 1977, to the date of judgment, March 30,1979, at the rate of six (6) percent and treble this amount to $7,046.07 pursuant to the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Accordingly, our former judgment is modified and judgment rendered against Par-Pak and in favor of In-dust-Ri-Chem for $69,529.80.
In all other respects, the motion for rehearing of Indust-Ri-Chem is overruled. Likewise, the motions for rehearing filed by Par-Pak and Southline are overruled.