Court Opinion

ID: 9742211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:08:30.846692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:29.505353
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
Notwithstanding Indiana Telephone Corp. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co. (2d Dist. 1976) 171 Ind.App. 661, 358 N.E.2d 218, authored by the writer of this opinion, and United Farm Bureau Family Life Insurance Co. v. Fultz (1st Dist. 1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 601, more recent decisions have persuaded me that allowance of prejudgment interest under the circumstances present here may not be founded upon I.C. 24-4.6-1-103 (Burns Supp. 1980). That statute, insofar as here pertinent, provides:
“Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum shall be allowed:
(a) From the date of settlement on money due on any instrument in writing which does not specify a rate of interest and which is not covered by IC 1971, 24-4.5 or this article.”
The claim of Savage does not arise by reason of the insurance policy before us. Rather, the claim arises because the instrument did not contain the language in writing which would have provided the coverage sought and contemplated. The policy did not cover the loss for which money is now claimed.
Be that as it may, and even if the policy before us were an instrument in writing under which the money is claimed to be due, there was no “settlement” of the mon*711ey due until the amount of the loss was established at trial. Accordingly, I must retract from the unmistakable implication of Indiana Telephone Corp. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., supra, that an unliquidated claim for money may give rise to pre-judgment interest under the statute.
In my view Urbanational Developers, Inc. v. Shamrock Engineering, Inc. (3d Dist. 1978) Ind.App., 372 N.E.2d 742 and the more recent 3rd District opinion, Fort Wayne National Bank v. Scher (1981) Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 1332, relying heavily upon New York, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Roper (1911) 176 Ind. 497, 96 N.E. 468, make it clear that the statute is unnecessary, if not redundant, in situations in which pre-judgment interest is necessary to fully compensate the plaintiff for the harm or loss claimed.
I concur because pre-judgment interest here is necessary to fully compensate Savage from the date of his loss but not because the pre-judgment interest is authorized by I.C. 24-4.6-1-103.
In all other respects I concur in the majority opinion.