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

No related legislation or reform items to display.



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
Exxon Mobil v. New Hampshire
(U.S. Supreme Court, filed February 22, 2016): Arguing that Exxon’s liability for selling MTBE-Oxygenated gasoline should be preempted by the federal ...
New Hampshire
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue Associates, et. al.
(New York, filed in February of 2016): Arguing that consolidation of asbestos-based personal injury actions for trial violates CPLR 602(a) where the a...
New York
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Certainteed Corporation v. Fletcher
(Ga., filed in March of 2016): Arguing that manufacturers should not be held liable for negligence in asbestos cases involving take-home exposure. ...
Georgia
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Microsoft v. Baker
(U.S., filed March 18, 2016): Arguing that a federal court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the plai...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
In Re Lipitor
(3rd Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that antitrust cases require pleadings to include sufficient facts to establish a plausible foundation for t...
3rd Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Trinity Industries Inc.
(5th Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that if allowed to stand, the decision below would produce deep regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and...
5th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position



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.