Brandywine Smyrna, Inc. v. Millennium Builders, LLC
2011 Del. LEXIS 647
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Brandywine Smyrna and BCP Smyrna (owned by Joseph Renzi) operate a Delaware auto dealership; Millennium Builders, LLC, roofed the showroom across Route 13; September 22, 2007 storm left roof incomplete and unsealed, causing extensive water damage; Brandywine Smyrna paid Millennium about $238,453 for repairs and incurred additional losses; eight-day Superior Court trial resulted in $612,659 in damages (property, lost car sales, lost parts/service, and interest); Superior Court denied prejudgment interest; Brandywine Smyrna appealed arguing prejudgment interest should be awarded; the court remanded for calculation of prejudgment interest on contract damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brandywine is entitled to prejudgment interest under §2301(d) for tort damages. | Brandywine argues §2301(d) applies where settlement demand precedes trial and damages are awarded. | Millennium contends §2301(d) only applies where the demand is less than trial damages for tort claims. | Tort prejudgment interest denied. |
| Whether Brandywine is entitled to prejudgment interest on contract damages despite §2301(d). | Since damages were awarded on both tort and contract, prejudgment interest on contract damages is appropriate. | §2301(d) is limited to tort claims; no statute-based prejudgment interest on contract damages. | Brandywine entitled to prejudgment interest on contract damages. |
| Whether the $72,650 'additional interest expenses' were prejudgment interest or damages. | These are prejudgment interest amounts. | They are damages for interest-incurred due to Millennium’s conduct. | These were damages, not prejudgment interest; prejudgment interest on contract damages still due. |
| Whether prejudgment interest must be awarded for consequential damages when exact amount was unsettled before verdict. | Consequence damages are calculable and prejudgment interest should attach as a matter of right. | Estimating damages pre-verdict argues against fixed prejudgment interest. | Prejudgment interest must be awarded on consequential contract damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiana Care Health Servs., Inc. v. Crist, 956 A.2d 622 (Del. 2008) (relevance of prejudgment interest standards in Delaware)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Enrique, 16 A.3d 938 (Del. 2011) (prejudgment interest when settlement demand exceeds damages (D ended))
- Moskowitz v. Mayor and Council of Wilmington, 391 A.2d 209 (Del. 1978) (prejudgment interest as a matter of right; public policy in full compensation)
- Metro. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Carmen Holding Co., 220 A.2d 778 (Del. 1966) (insurance contract prejudgment interest as a matter of right)
- Rollins Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. WSMW Indus., Inc., 426 A.2d 1363 (Del. Super. 1980) (Delaware prejudgment interest principles)