Kosarko v. Padula, 960 N.E.2d 810

Kosarko sued for injuries from an auto accident with Herndobler; Herndobler died and Padula, as estate administrator, substituted as defendant.
Kosarko served a $100,000 qualified settlement offer March 18, 2008, to be paid within 60 days; offer not accepted.
A jury awarded Kosarko $210,000 at trial.
Kosarko moved for prejudgment interest; the trial court denied the motion, finding damages not ascertainable within a timeframe justifying prejudgment interest.
Kosarko appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding prejudgment interest was improperly denied.
The court awarded prejudgment interest to Kosarko in the amount of $79,627.40 and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying prejudgment interest	Kosarko argues damages were ascertainable and interest appropriate	Padula argues damages not ascertainable within timeframe and no prejudgment interest	Abuse found; prejudgment interest awarded and remand ordered

Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind.2000) (time value of money bears cost to defendant when damages within statutory limits)
Simon Prop. Group, L.P. v. Brandt Const., Inc., 830 N.E.2d 981 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (damages ascertainable by reference to known standards)
Hupfer v. Miller, 890 N.E.2d 7 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (settlement policy and prejudgment interest purpose)
Wayne Twp. v. Lutheran Hosp. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (prejudgment interest as additional damages for full compensation)
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Combs, 873 N.E.2d 692 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (reverses prejudgment interest where damages not ascertainable under fixed rules)
Whited v. Whited, 859 N.E.2d 657 (Ind.2007) (trial court discretion to deny prejudgment interest based on delay attributable to party)
Deel v. Deel, 935 N.E.2d 183 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (remand to allow trial court to determine prejudgment interest amount)