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. 1080
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
Prejudgment Interest Rate Reform: HB 5885 (1987).

Sets the prejudgment interest rate at the U.S. Treasury Bill rate.  Provides that interest accrues from the date the lawsuit is filed.

Rhode Island
Prejudgment Interest: H. 3403 (2000).

Sets prejudgment interest rates at the prime rate plus one percent.

South Carolina
Prejudgment Interest- H.B. 2982 (2012)
This bill establishes the Federal Reserve weekly average prime loan rate as the standard interest rate on judgments so long as such rate does not exce...
Tennessee
Prejudgment Interest Reform: SB 488 (1986).
Prohibits the assessment of prejudgment interest on punitive damages awards.  Sets the prejudgment interest rate at 4% above the U.S. Treasury Bill. ...
Oklahoma
Post-judgment Interest Rate Reform: HB 2485 (2004)

Established the post-judgment interest rate equal to the average twenty-six week Treasury bill rate, plus two percent.

Washington
Judgment Interest: S.B. 69 (2014)
Requires that in order for a plaintiff to receive prejudgment interest, the plaintiff shall have tendered an offer of settlement.  S.B. 69 provides th...
Utah
Judgment Interest Reform: Special Session S.B. 14 (2011)
Changes the pre- and post judgment interest rate in all civil cases from 12 percent to the Federal Reserve prime rate plus one percent, and provides t...
Wisconsin
Post-Judgment Interest Reform: H.B. 393 (2005)

Specified that post-judgment interest is to be calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus five percent.

Missouri
Post- Judgment Interest Rate Reform: H. 3008 (2005)

Reduced post judgment interest from a flat 12 percent to the prime rate plus four percent.

South Carolina


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
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...
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
(U.S., filed September 12, 2025): Arguing that the Louisiana coastal litigation proves the importance of federal officer removal.  The Government law...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Suncor Energy Inc., et. al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et. al.
(U.S., filed September 12, 2025): Urging the Court to grant the petition for certiari.  Arguing that global climate change is not traditional st...
SCOTUS
  • Court Granted Cert iconCourt Granted Cert
Sommerville v. Union Carbide and Covestro LLC
(4th Circ., filed September 9, 2025): Supporting rehearing en banc. Arguing that Article III standing requires an injury that is concrete and particu...
4th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC
(CA., filed September 4, 2025): Urging the court to review the lower court’s decision because in combination with the decision in Gilead, it threaten...
California
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided



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.