Margaret Kosarko v. William A. Padula, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel L. Herndobler
979 N.E.2d 144
Ind.2012Background
- Kosarko sued Padula as administrator for injuries from a 2007 auto collision; after Herndobler died, suit continued against estate.
- Trial produced a March 24, 2010 jury verdict awarding Kosarko $210,000 in damages.
- Kosarko sought prejudgment interest under the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute (TPIS) for $79,627.40.
- Trial court denied interest, citing that damages were ongoing and not readily ascertainable.
- Court of Appeals reversed; Supreme Court granted transfer to decide TPIS interplay with common law.
- Supreme Court held TPIS abrogates the common law prejudgment interest rules for cases within its scope and remanded for TPIS-based calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TPIS abrogate common law prejudgment interest rules? | Kosarko/ITLA: TPIS replaces common law completely for tort cases. | Padula/DTCI: TPIS supplements, not replaces, common law rules. | TPIS abrogates common law prejudgment interest in covered cases. |
| Should prejudgment interest be determined under TPIS on remand rather than common law? | Interest must be evaluated under TPIS framework. | Remand to apply common law standard if TPIS not used. | Remand to apply TPIS discretionary framework. |
| Is the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest proper given ongoing damages? | Damages were ascertainable under TPIS requirements. | Damages were ongoing; common law applicability invalid. | Remand; TPIS controls, not common law. |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Y., Chi. & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Roper, 176 Ind. 497 (Ind. 1911) (prejudgment interest based on complete, ascertainable damages under classic standard)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Graham, 567 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 1991) (affirms Roper framework for prejudgment interest)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong, 442 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1982) (endorses Roper approach to ascertainability of damages)
- Willits v. State, 773 N.E.2d 808 (Ind. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for prejudgment interest rulings)
- Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc., 745 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. 2001) (statutory exceptions and interpretation guiding abrogation analysis)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Citizens Action Coalition of Ind., 548 N.E.2d 153 (Ind. 1989) (statutory vs. common law interaction; implied consideration of remedies)
- Whited v. Whited, 859 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 2007) (treats TPIS alongside some common law rules; later disapproved in part)
- Inman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., N.E.2d (Ind. 2012) (contemporary TPIS interpretation and abrogation context)