142 Conn. App. 484
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Hurricane Bob destroyed Maine fish hatchery business of Mariculture Products Ltd.
- Mariculture pursued insurance claim against Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (Lloyd’s) and related parties.
- Parties stipulated Maine law would govern the issue of interest; later remanded proceedings addressed judgment interest.
- Mariculture II (2008) held Maine law governed postjudgment interest and remanded to vacate prior postjudgment interest under Connecticut law.
- Plaintiff eventually sought postjudgment interest under Maine § 1602-C after remand; trial court awarded; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1602-C should apply to postjudgment interest | Mariculture relies on Maine law per stipulation | Lloyd's argues procedural/retroactivity issues; Maine law improper | Maine § 1602-C applies per stipulation and precedent |
| Whether Maine law governs interest due to contract stipulation | Parties intended Maine law for interest | Defendants contend procedural/substantive mismatch | Court agrees Maine law governs interest per prior Mariculture II ruling |
| Whether plaintiff waived § 1602-C by delay/pleading history | Delay does not bar postjudgment interest; motion on remand proper | Waiver due to not pleading §1602-C earlier | No waiver; postjudgment interest properly awardable on remand |
| Whether defendants were prejudiced by late claim for § 1602-C | Delay not prejudicial given lack of evidence of defense prejudice | Delay prejudiced enforcement of judgment | No evidentiary prejudice; discretionary award proper |
| Whether the court correctly applied Maine law notwithstanding Batchelder retroactivity | Stipulation controls; retroactivity not binding here | Procedural/substantive classification contested | Choice-of-law governed by stipulation; §1602-C properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 131 Conn. App. 223 (Conn. App. 2011) (contractual basis for postjudgment interest; respect for party autonomy)
- Bower v. D’Onfro, 45 Conn. App. 543 (Conn. App. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for postjudgment interest decisions)
- Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74 (Me. 2008) (amendment 2007 §1602-C; not altering long-standing right to postjudgment interest)
- Batchelder v. Tweedie, 294 A.2d 444 (Me. 1972) (retroactivity/ procedural interpretation of §1602-C)
- Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London,, 110 Conn. App. 668, 955 A.2d 1206 (Conn. App. 2008) (previous decision holding Maine law should govern interest and remand guidance)
- American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 302 Conn. 494, 28 A.3d 976 (Conn. 2011) (law of the case doctrine; controlling on retrial)
- Behrns v. Behrns, 124 Conn. App. 794 (Conn. App. 2010) (postjudgment interest allowable following remand)