Judgement Interest

In the absence of an applicable statute or rule, the courts generally applied the traditional common law rule that prejudgment interest was not available in tort actions since the claim for damages was unliquidated. In an effort to compensate tort plaintiffs for the often‑considerable lag between the event giving rise to the cause of action, or filing of the lawsuit, and the actual payment of the damages, many state legislatures have enacted laws that provide for or allow prejudgment interest in particular tort actions or under particular circumstances. In addition to seeking to compensate the plaintiff fully for losses incurred, the goal of such statutes is to encourage early settlements and to reduce delay in the disposition of cases, thereby lessening congestion in the courts.

The Problem

Although well‑intended, the practical effects of prejudgment interest statutes can be inequitable and counter‑productive. Prejudgment interest laws can, for example, result in over‑compensation, hold a defendant financially responsible for delay the defendant may not have caused, and impede settlement.

ATRA’s Position

At a time when policymakers are attempting to lower the cost of the liability system in an equitable and just manner, prejudgment interest laws that currently exist and new proposals should be reviewed to ensure that they are structured fairly and in a way designed to foster settlement. At a minimum, the interest rate should reflect prevailing interest rates by being indexed to the treasury bill rate at the time the claim was filed and an offer of judgment provision should be included.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Judgement Interest
Judgment Interest Reform: S.B. 207 (2011); Amended Code of Ala. § 6-5-410.
Changes the rate of interest on judgments in Alabama from 12% to 7.5%.  Prior to the enactment of S.B. 207, a defendant who lost a lawsuit and chose t...
Alabama
Judgment Interest Rate Reform: H.B. 567 (2011)
Provides that the judgment interest rate will be set in accordance with the interest rate as set by the Chief Financial Officer based on the discount ...
Florida
Prejudgment Interest Rate Reform: SF 482 (1987).
Prohibits the assessment of prejudgment interest for future damages.  (Other interest accrues from the date of commencement of the actions at a rate b...
Iowa
Prejudgment Interest Rate Reform: HB 1690 (1987).

Sets prejudgment interest rates at the prime rate plus 1% with a floor of 7% and a cap of 14%.

Louisiana
Prejudgment Interest Rate Reform: (1997).
Sets prejudgment interest rates at the average Treasury Bill rate for 52 weeks plus 2%.  Provided varying rates of prejudgment interest for actions pe...
Louisiana
Prejudgment Interest Rate Reform: HF 693 (1997); Amended Iowa Code § 535.3.

Sets the prejudgment interest rates at the U.S. Treasury Rate plus 2%.

Iowa
Prejudgment Interest Rate Reform: LD 2520 (1988).

Sets prejudgment interest rates and postjudgment interest rates at the U.S. Treasury Bill rate.

Maine
Prejudgment and Postjudgment Interest Reform: HB 2661 (2004).

Sets prejudgment and postjudgment interest rate at the prime rate plus 2 percent (effective January 1, 2005).

Oklahoma
Prejudgment Interest Reforms: HB 1603 (2009)
Provides that prejudgment interest does not begin to accrue until two years after the beginning of a lawsuit; reduced the interest rate charged. ...
Oklahoma
Judgment Interest Reform: S.B. 1080 (2013)
Provides that if a rate of interest is specified in a contract and does not exceed the lawful rate, postjudgment interest shall be calculated at the c...
Oklahoma


Judgement Interest News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Judgement Interest

Hold On to Your Pocketbooks If Interest Goes Up On Civil Lawsuits

This opinion editorial first appeared in the Chicago Sun Times.The cos...

‘Pre-Judgment Interest’ Bill Would Further Advantage Trial Lawyers

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 29, 2017 – With the Florida Senate’s Rules Committe...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Judgement Interest
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Monsanto v. Durnell
(U.S., filed March 2, 2026): Arguing that requirements for herbicide labeling should not be made case-by-case in litigation sparked by a flawed IARC ...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Cowan v. Dr. Slann et.al.
(N.D., filed February 23, 2026): Arguing that reasonable limits on medical liability improve the health care system for doctors and patients and Nort...
North Dakota
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Oregon Local Legal Services Advertising 2021-2025
Trial lawyers and aggregators increasingly spend large sums of money on television, digital,and print advertising to recruit new clients. In 2025, it...
Oregon
The Junk Science Playbook
The Machine That Sparks and Supports Mass Tort LitigationIntroduction and Executive SummaryMass tort litigation is a sprawling, profit-driven...
Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Fannie Tartt et al.
(GA, filed January 20, 2026): Arguing that traditional tort law and persuasive decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous state high courts do ...
Georgia
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Sanctionable: The unsupported, exaggerated, and suspicious claims plaguing our nation’s courts
There is growing concern that many lawsuits filed in our nation’s courts are unsupported, involve manufactured or exaggerated injuries, or stem from ...
California, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania
Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hospital et. al.
(OH., filed October 7, 2025): Arguing that the Court should review the lower court’s decision because the Court should comprehensively address the co...
Ohio
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Atlas Turner, Inc. v. Welch
(U.S., filed September 22, 2025): Arguing the Court should review the use of receiverships by the South Carolina asbestos court.  The receivership pr...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Letter to House Judiciary Committee re: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act
This letter was submitted on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association to express our support for H.R. 5437, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce ...
California
Letter to DOJ re: RFI on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Interstate Commerce
Re: Request for Information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Com...



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.