DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C.
114 A.3d 1181
Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiff Michele DiLieto obtained a jury verdict and judgment in a medical malpractice action against County Obstetrics and Gynecology Group, P.C., Casper, and Yale; underlying judgment date July 14, 2006.
- Initial judgment included offer of judgment interest and costs, with total award over $11 million; on appeal, offer of judgment portion was revised.
- DiLieto I-II/DiLieto III remanded for correct postjudgment interest analysis under § 37-3b; question arose whether defendants’ pendency of appeal warranted denial of postjudgment interest.
- On remand, plaintiff moved for postjudgment interest at up to 10% per year; the parties stipulated investment-return rates for what plaintiff would have earned if paid earlier.
- Trial court awarded 8% postjudgment interest on the underlying judgment from July 14, 2006 to October 28, 2010 and 3% on the postjudgment interest from October 28, 2010 onward, later challenging whether interest on the postjudgment interest could accrue from October 28, 2010.
- Defendants appealed, arguing rates should be limited to risk-free investments and that interest on the postjudgment interest should begin from November 5, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May trial court consider non–risk-free investment returns under § 37-3b? | DiLieto argues court may consider broad investment returns to set a fair rate. | County Ob/Gyn contends rate must be tied solely to risk-free investments (Treasury). | Trial court's discretion to consider investment returns was proper; up to 10% allowed. |
| When does postjudgment interest on the postjudgment interest begin accrual? | Interest on postjudgment interest should accrue from date of award, per DiLieto III. | Interest on the postjudgment award should begin when the postjudgment interest award was made (Nov. 5, 2013). | Interest on the postjudgment interest accrues from Nov. 5, 2013; reversed to so rule. |
| Is the 8% rate on the underlying judgment within the court's discretion under § 37-3b? | 8% is within statutory discretion and appropriate given investment-return evidence. | Court should not exceed the statutory cap and should consider only risk-free rates. | 8% rate affirmed as within trial court discretion. |
| Should the court have awarded interest on the postjudgment interest from 2010 onward? | Court may award interest on the postjudgment interest; the money was to be paid and delayed. | Interest on the postjudgment interest should not run until the postjudgment decision. | Reversed on this point; interest on the postjudgment interest begins from the date the award was made (Nov. 5, 2013). |
Key Cases Cited
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 310 Conn. 38 (Conn. 2013) (reaffirms that § 37-3b may award up to 10% and broad discretion to consider factors)
- Northrop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 247 Conn. 242 (Conn. 1998) (interest accrues from date money is due; key to timing in postjudgment interest)
- Winsted Savings Bank v. New Hartford, 78 Conn. 319 (Conn. 1905) (legal rate as presumptively fair measure of compensation for detention of money)
- Little v. United National Investors Corp., 160 Conn. 534 (Conn. 1971) (historical basis for statutory interest on judgments and related timing)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 241 Conn. 749 (Conn. 1997) (construction of § 37-3a; rate context for comparison with § 37-3b)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (Conn. 2009) (statutory linkage considerations; relevance to economic indicators in § 37-3b)