Effective November 1, 2009, amendments to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258, §§ 1-14, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA’s) enabling statute, G. L. c. 161A (collectively, 2009 amendments), made the MBTA a “public employer” covered by the Tort Claims Act. See G. L. c. 258, § 1, as amended through St. 2009, c. 25, § 123; G. L. c. 161A, § 38, as amended by St. 2009, c. 25, §§ 112, 113; St. 2009, c. 25, § 185, as amended by St. 2009, c. 26, § 60. This case presents the question whether the 2009 amendments apply retroactively, allоwing the MBTA the protections of public employer status against a plaintiff whose claims accrued prior to November 1, 2009. We conclude that the 2009 amendments do not so apply. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not precluded from recovering prejudgment interest and costs or postjudgment interest against the MBTA that accrued prior to November 1, 2009.
1. Background. On July 15, 2005, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle aсcident with a bus operated by an MBTA employee. The plaintiff filed suit on October 26, 2005, against the MBTA and the bus driver. On September 28, 2009, a jury determined that the accident resulted from the employee’s negligence, and they awarded the plaintiff $661,784 in damages. On September 30, 2009, or about a month prior to the amendments’ effective date, judgment entered for the plaintiff in “the sum of $661,784.00 with interest thereon . . . and [the plaintiff’s] costs” (emphasis supplied). See G. L. c. 231, § 6B (in any tort action “there shall be added ... to the amount of damages [twelve per cent annual] interest thereon . . . from the date of commencement of the action”).
A month later, on November 1, 2009, the MBTA became a “public employer” under the Tort Claims Act. St. 2009, c. 25, § 123. St. 2009, c. 26, § 60. Public employers are immune from the award of interest and costs, Onofrio v. Department of Mental Health,
2. Discussion, a. Interest and costs accruing prior to November 1, 2009. Whether a statute is to be applied to events occurring prior to the date on which it took effect is in the first instance a question of legislative intent. Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp.,
As we explain below, the MBTA’s “new” status as a public employer results in a comparative diminution of the substantive rights of persons previously injured by the tortious actions of MBTA employees. We discern no clear legislative intent that such accrued rights be diminished retroactively. Thus, we conclude that the 2009 amendments do not preclude the award of interest and costs against the MBTA accruing prior to November 1, 2009.
The MBTA is established by statute as a “political subdivision of the [Commonwealth.” G. L. c. 161A, § 2. It is funded in part from the Commonwealth’s treasury, G. L. c. 161A, § 8, and in part from the budgets of the cities and tоwns that it serves. G. L. c. 161A, § 9. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, therefore, the MBTA is not amenable to suit without the Commonwealth’s express consent.
Such consent was first given, on the MBTA’s creation, by G. L. c. 161A, § 21, inserted by St. 1964, c. 563, § 18. That statute made the MBTA “liable in tort... in the same manner as though it were a street railway company.” Id. See G. L. c. 161A, § 38 (as codified in 1999). It thereby placed the MBTA on the same footing as any private transport оperator, requiring it, among other things, to pay interest and costs in accordance with the law generally applicable to claims in tort. See, e.g., Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth.,
Effective November 1, 2009, however, the Legislature annulled the waiver of immunity in G. L. c. 161A, § 38. See St. 2009, c. 25, §§ 112-113. It provided instead that the MBTA was to be treated as a “public employer” under the Tort Claims Act. See St. 2009, c. 25, § 123. The Tort Claims Act provides
As previously stated, sovereign consent to suit is effective only “to the extent expressed [by] statute,” Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Dep’t, suрra, and the extent of the MBTA’s liability under the 2009 amendments is narrower than that available prior to November 1, 2009. Specifically, G. L. c. 258, § 2, provides that public employers “shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment.” Contrast Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., supra at 819-821. We have determined also that the Tort Claims Act does not waive the Commonwealth’s immunity from the recovery of postjudgment interest or costs. See Onofrio v. Department of Mental Health,
ii. Substantive rights. The effect of the 2009 amendments in narrowing the scope of the Commonwealth’s consent to suit is substantive within the meaning of our cases on retroactivity.
“[T]he distinction between legislation concerning ‘substantive rights,’ and legislation concerning ‘only procedures and remedies’ ” is easy to enunciate, but often “difficult to draw.” Fleet Nat’l Bank, supra at 449, quoting City Council of Waltham v. Vinciullo,
If the 2009 amendments wеre read to preclude the plaintiff from recovery of interest and costs accruing prior to November 1, 2009, it would result in a change in the measure of damages available to the plaintiff. The award of prejudgment interest, in particular, is a significant component of the substantive remedy provided by tort law.
Under the common law of torts, at the time of an accident, an injured party accrues a right, albeit an inchoate one, “to be made whole and compensated for” injuries wrongfully inflicted by a tortfeasor. G.E. Lothrop Theatres Co. v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co.,
As such, prejudgment interest is often described as an integral component of compensatory damages. See Militello v. Ann & Grace, Inc.,
Denying the plaintiff the recovery of interest accruing prior to the effective date of the 2009 amendments
iii. Clear indication of legislative intent. Because the 2009 amendments modify the substantive rights of tort plaintiffs, we will only apply the amendments retroactively “[i]f it appears by necessary implication from the words, context or objects of [the
The amendments contain no express language of retroactivity. Contrast Boston Edison Co. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Auth.,
If adopted, the MBTA’s argument would amount to a reversal of the general presumption against retroactivity. To some degree, the purposes of almost any statute might be better achieved if the statute were applied retroactively. Yet, “that ‘retroactive application of a new statute would vindicate its purpose more fully ... is not sufficient to rebut the presumption against retroactivity.’ ” Nunez, supra at 521, quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,
The Legislature’s designation of St. 2009, c. 25, as emergency legislation does not change this analysis. The inclusion of an emergency preamble demonstrates only that the Legislature intended the statute to take effect without regard for the ninety-day waiting period otherwise provided by art. 48 оf the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.
Thus, the MBTA fails to identify any clear indication of
b. Interest accruing on and after November 1, 2009. The parties differ also on how interest should be calculated for the period of time on and after November 1, 2009. The MBTA argues that, even if the 2009 amendments apply prospectively only, they would not permit accrual of interest on and after November 1, 2009. The plaintiff responds that final judgment entered prior to November 1, 2009, and that postjudgment interest should be controlled by the law as it existed on the date of final judgment.
The plaintiff’s position is contrary to our settled precedent. As noted in Trinity Church, and as explained at length above, interest is awarded as “compensation for delay.” Trinity Church, supra at 684. It accrues, therefore, only upon the actual occurrence of delay. Prior to the 2009 amendments’ effective date, the plaintiff had no vested right to interest for the period subsequent to that date, because he had not yet suffered that period of delay. See id. (postjudgment interest); Porter v. Clerk of the Superior Court,
Absent such implication of substantive rights, we do not apply the presumption against retroactivity, but instead “look to the stage of the proceedings affected by the change and determine whether that stage has been completed on the effective date of the amendment. If the point in the proceedings to which the statutory change is applicable has already passed, the proceedings are not subject to that change. If, on the other hand, that point has not yet been reached, the new provisions apply.”
The plaintiff attempts to distinguish Trinity Church. He observes that Trinity Church dealt with a statute directly and solely addressing interest rates, whereas the MBTA’s status as a public employer has multiple effects. Although this observation is correct, the logic of our prior cases does not depend on the singular purpose of a statute — “ [legislation is frequently multipurposed . . . ,” Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp.,
Further, while we recognize that the 2009 amendments make no еxpress reference to interest, we do not think it appropriate to elevate form over purpose and effect. Such a result would introduce uncertainty in the application of future statutes bearing on interest, without any reason to think that the Legislature
The plaintiff emphasizes also that Trinity Church dealt with an increase in thе statutory interest rate, rather than the reduction at issue here. Absent any showing, however, that, prior to November 1, 2009, the plaintiff obtained a vested right to continue receiving interest at the statutory rate, that is a distinction without a difference. See Fleet Nat’l Bank, supra at 450-451 (applying new lower rate of interest from effective date of statute). In sum, we are unconvinced by the plaintiff’s attempts to distinguish Trinity Church.
Our general rule is that а statute affecting the interest payable prior to judgment, or on a judgment, shall not apply retroactively but shall instead apply prospectively from the effective date of that statute. See Fleet Nat’l Bank, supra; Trinity Church, supra\ Porter, supra. There is no special circumstance requiring derogation from that rule here. The MBTA was not a public employer prior to November 1, 2009, and is therefore not entitled to the proteсtions of that status for claims accrued prior to that date. Conversely, the plaintiff obtained no vested right to the continuing accrual of interest on and after November 1, 2009, and is therefore not entitled to recover interest accruing from the MBTA’s continuing delay in payment since that date.
The plaintiff is entitled to interest and costs accruing between the date of commencement of thе action and November 1, 2009, but may not recover any such sums accruing on or after November 1. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Superior Court where a new judgment will enter awarding prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Notes
The Appeals Court also affirmed the trial judge’s denial of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA’s) motion for a new trial, which contained additional claims of error. The MBTA does not pursue those claims before this court.
That principle is most frequently applied in the context of an increase in liability rather than a limitation on recovery. See, e.g., Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp.,
By statute, however, interest is computed not from the date of injury but, rather, “from the date of commencement of the action,” G. L. c. 231, § 6B,
Interest will have begun accruing at a rate of twelve per cent on the date of сommencement of the action, which is ordinarily the date on which the plaintiff filed suit. See note 9, infra.
We note also that the statute would limit the MBTA’s aggregate liability in certain cases to $100,000, see G. L. c. 258, § 2, notwithstanding that this sum may not fully compensate a plaintiff for his or her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Although the MBTA does not contend that this liability cap should apply in the present actiоn, we note that its retroactive application in cases where the $100,000 limit would otherwise not apply would result in a further substantive reduction in the measure of recovery available to plaintiffs whose claims accrued prior to November 1, 2009.
The provision states: “No law passed by the general court shall take effect earlier than ninety days after it has become a law, exсepting laws declared to be emergency laws . . . .” Art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, The Referendum, Part I.
This is in contrast to interest for the period prior to the effective date. See part 2.a, supra. Because the injury compensated by such interest is the delay suffered prior to November 1, 2009, the plaintiff’s right to such interest vested prior to that date.
The same rule applies to the сalculation of costs, an issue raised by the parties but not independently briefed.
We provide, in the interest of clarity, four examples. First, a plaintiff injured on October 31, 2006, who files suit on October 31, 2007, obtains judgment on October 31, 2008, and is paid by the MBTA on October 31, 2009, is entitled to two years of interest, running from October 31, 2007, to October 31, 2009, at a rate of twelve per cent. Second, that same plaintiff would not be entitled to any additional interest even if payment were delаyed for an additional year, to October 31, 2010. Third, a plaintiff who files suit on October 31, 2008, obtains judgment on October 31, 2010, and receives payment on October 31, 2011, is entitled to only one year of interest at twelve per cent, i.e., the interest accruing from October 31, 2008, through October 31, 2009. Fourth, a plaintiff injured on June 30, 2009, who brings suit on November 2, 2009, although not subject to retroactive application of the amendment, is nonetheless unable to collect any interest on the judgment that may enter. In short, the plaintiff’s ability to recover interest does not depend on whether the interest sought is prejudgment or postjudgment interest. The sole relevant question is whether the interest accrued prior to the 2009 amendments’ effective date or whether it accrued on or after that date.
Absent clear language, courts have encountered particular difficulty in determining on a case-by-case basis when and how the Legislature intended that a new rate of interest would apply to cases already in litigation. See, e.g., Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,