Court Opinion

ID: 9850730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:02:02.23812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.531363
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I
I agree with the portion of the Court’s opinion which holds that under I.C. § 41-1839 the plaintiff should be awarded attorney fees incurred relating to the litigation. However, the effect of today’s opinion is to repeal the provisions of I.C. § 7-910, which provides that the arbitration award shall not include counsel fees. The best resolution of these two statutes is to prorate the attorney fees between that portion caused by the litigation, and that portion incurred in the conducting of the arbitration. It has always been the rule of statutory construction to interpret two conflicting provisions so as to give them both some meaning. 2 Lewis Suth.Stat.Const., § 516 (2d ed.); Taxpayers v. Fair Political Prac. Com’n, 212 Cal.App.3d 991, 260 Cal.Rptr. 898 (2nd Dist.1989) (“[Ujnder general rules of statutory construction, courts must first seek to harmonize and reconcile statutes which relate to the same subject matter and thereby avoid, if at all possible, an interpretation which would cause one of the statutes to be ignored.”). Prorating the fees would give meaning to both I.C. §§ 41-1839 and 7-910. I would remand for that proration.
II
As to the award of prejudgment interest, the Court’s opinion follows our earlier decision in Brinkman v. AID Ins. Co., 115 Idaho 346, 766 P.2d 1227 (1988), which is contrary to literally dozens of our prior cases which have held that, even in contract cases, no prejudgment interest will be allowed where the amount of the damages is unliquidated. Stoor’s, Inc. v. Idaho Department of Parks & Recreation, 119 Idaho 83, 803 P.2d 989 (1990); Barber v. Honorof 116 Idaho 767, 780 P.2d 89 (1989); Davis v. Professional Business Services, Inc., 109 Idaho 810, 712 P.2d 511 (1985); Mitchell v. Flandro, 95 Idaho 228, 506 P.2d 455 (1972); Farm Development Corp. v. *249Hernandez, 93 Idaho 918, 478 P.2d 298 (1970).
Without discussing or overruling the foregoing cases, Brinkman purported to rely on I.C. § 28-22-104(1) to justify the result in that case. However, even though I.C. § 28-22-104(1) does provide for interest on “money due by express contract,” this Court, in Farm Development Corp. v. Hernandez, 93 Idaho 918, 478 P.2d 298 (1970), expressly rejected the award of prejudgment interest based upon I.C. § 28-22-104, where the damages are unliquidated. The Court in Farm Development Corp. stated:
Farm Development argues it is entitled to interest as a matter of law on the sum of $8,008.50 at six per cent (6%) per annum from April 16,1965 to the time of the judgment herein, in addition to the interest from the date of judgment until satisfaction thereof. Farm Development contends that this conclusion is compelled by I.C. 28-22-104, which provides in pertinent part:
“When there is no express contract in writing fixing a different rate of interest, interest is allowed at the rate of six cents (6<p) on the hundred by the year on:
“1. Money due by express contract.”
At the time of the execution of the contract the above provision was in force as I.C. § 27-1904. It is true as Farm Development contends that there need be no prayer for interest contained in the complaint to justify the award of interest. Black v. Darrah, 71 Idaho 404, 233 P.2d 415 (1951). However, it is also settled that “courts have refused to allow interest from a time prior to judgment when the principal amount of liability was unliquidated. This limitation is apparently based upon equitable considerations. However, where the amount of liability is liquidated or capable of ascertainment by mere mathematical processes * * * this Court has allowed interest from a time prior to judgment, for in that event the interest in fully compensating the injured party predominates over other equitable considerations.”
93 Idaho at 920, 478 P.2d at 300. The Court in Brinkman apparently was unaware that the issue had been decided in the Farm Development Corp. case. Because of that conflict in the two cases, we should reevaluate the issue.
There is no more classic case of unliquidated damages than a personal injury where the trier of fact is evaluating the effects of a personal injury on future lost wages, future medical expense, future pain and suffering, and other physical and emotional problems which the claimant will suffer in the future. There is no good reason to make an exception for first-party insurance cases, as today’s opinion apparently proposes to interpret Brinkman.
In fact, there is a very good reason not to. Judgments for such personal injuries routinely compensate a person for damages which have not yet occurred, but which will occur in the future, i.e., future medical expenses, future lost wages, pain, suffering, disfigurement, etc. It is basically illogical and unjust to award prejudgment interest on sums of money representing damages which have not yet occurred, but which will only occur sometime in the future.
This Court should reconsider its decision in Brinkman and reject it. It is contrary to all of our prior case law dealing with unliquidated damages, whether in contract or tort, and specifically, it is contrary to our case of Farm Development Corp. v. Hernandez, supra. But more importantly, it is illogical and unjust to award interest for damages which have not yet occurred.