529 N.E.2d 953 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1987
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal from the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. The parties to this appeal are James and Lucille Vanderhoof, husband and wife (hereinafter "appellants"), and General Accident Insurance Group (hereinafter "appellee"). This appeal concerns appellants' motion for an award of prejudgment interest pursuant to R.C.
Trial was set for August 29, 1985. A pretrial conference was held in the trial judge's chambers on August 27, 1985. At this conference, the parties agreed to settle appellants' uninsured motorist claim for $200,000. The trial court, in its September 13, 1985 journal entry, recited the terms and conditions of this settlement agreement. This entry was prepared by counsel for appellants, and is attached to this opinion as an appendix.
It is obvious that the parties treated appellants' uninsured motorist and prejudgment interest claims as separate matters. After the parties had settled appellants' uninsured motorist claim for $200,000, appellants moved for prejudgment interest on that amount. The court held a hearing *92 on the matter, at which the parties' August 27, 1985 settlement agreement was discussed. Specifically, counsel for appellee commented that the case "* * * was settled by paying the policy limits with the stipulation that if [appellants] wished to pursue pre-judgment interest, they could * * *." The court found that appellee had not failed to make a good faith effort to settle the case and, therefore, denied appellants' motion for prejudgment interest. Appellants now appeal from this order.1
"Interest on a judgment, decree, or order for the payment of money rendered in a civil action based on tortious conduct and not settled by agreement of the parties, shall be computed from the date the cause of action accrued to the date on which the money is paid, if, upon motion of any party to the action, the court determines at a hearing held subsequent to the verdict or decision in the action that the party required to pay the money failed to make a good faith effort to settle the case and that the party to whom the money is to be paid did not fail to make a good faith effort to settle the case."
We find that R.C.
Our construction of the words "judgment, decree, or order" as meaning only a judgment, decree, or order that is based upon an adjudicated adversarial proceeding is limited to R.C.
We recognize that the court memorialized the parties' agreement that appellants' motion for prejudgment interest was to be determined "* * * on the same basis as if a verdict was rendered on the Plaintiffs' behalf in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) after a trial on the merits of all issues raised in the Plaintiffs' Complaint." We hold, however, that the court, by its journal entry, *94
cannot bring the parties within the terms of R.C.
In Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985),
In the instant case, we find that error is apparent on the face of the record and that appellee was prejudiced thereby. The error consists of the court's entertaining appellants' motion for prejudgment interest where R.C.
Judgment vacated.
RESNICK and GLASSER, JJ., concur.
Concurrence Opinion
I reluctantly concur in the majority's decision; however, because of the unjust result in this case and the fact that this situation can be repeated in the future, it is necessary *95 for me to make the following statement. An insurance company can delay making an acceptable offer until the day of trial or even during trial. If the case is settled then the party is not entitled to prejudgment interest regardless of the lack of a good faith effort to settle the case on the part of the insurance company. It is for the General Assembly, however, to consider such issues and not for the courts. I therefore concur.
APPENDIX IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ERIE COUNTY, OHIO LUCILLE VANDERHOOF, et al.,
Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 46274
-vs-
JOURNAL ENTRY
GENERAL ACCIDENT GROUP,
Defendant.
__________/
It is the finding of the Court, that the parties have agreed
that a verdict should be entered on the behalf of the Plaintiff,
James Vanderhoof, in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00), and on the behalf of Lucille Vanderhoof in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) in
satisfaction of all elements of the Plaintiffs' prayer for
damages with the exception of the pre-judgment interest. It is
agreed between the parties that whether or not the Plaintiffs
shall receive pre-judgment interest, shall be determined by the
Court at the Court's convenience after the Plaintiffs file a
Motion for Pre-judgment Interest under R.C.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a Judgment be and hereby is rendered on the behalf of Lucille Vanderhoof in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) and on the behalf of James Vanderhoof in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). The Defendant shall pay the costs of this action. The Court further notes the aforesaid judgment has been paid in full, except court costs, which have yet to be billed.
__________
Judge James L. McCrystal
APPROVED BY:
__________ Michael T. Murray Attorney for Plaintiffs
__________ M.L. McDermond Attorney for Defendant *97