Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Procedure Prejudgment Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts substitute changing prejudgment-interest rules in personal-injury cases
Summary
After extended debate, the House approved a fourth substitute to Senate Bill 69 that narrows prejudgment-interest calculations (prime plus two, floor 5% cap 10%) and requires a plaintiff offer (within 1 1/3 of final settlement in certain tier-1 claims) to qualify for prejudgment interest; supporters called it a negotiated compromise and critics said it may burden injured plaintiffs.
The Utah House voted on March 11 to approve a forced substitute of Senate Bill 69, a bill revising prejudgment-interest rules in personal-injury litigation. Sponsors described three central features: (1) an "offer-of-judgment" requirement for some tier-1 claims (plaintiffs must make an offer within one and one-third of the final settlement amount to be eligible for prejudgment interest); (2) a new method to compute prejudgment interest tied to the prime rate ("two points above prime") with a minimum of 5 percent and a cap at 10 percent; and (3) a trigger that computes simple interest from the date the injury was first incurred.
Representative McKell (floor sponsor) said the changes were the product of negotiation with stakeholders and described the prime-plus-two approach as "fair" and based on economic practice. Representative Christiansen and others pushed back, arguing the offer-of-judgment element could unfairly shift forecasting risk onto injured plaintiffs and give insurers leverage in settlement dynamics; Christiansen asked how counteroffers would interact with the rule and cautioned it could make recovering prejudgment interest more difficult for plaintiffs. Representative McKell said the substitute narrows prior versions and includes a 60-day period for counteroffers; he described the change from a 120-day window as a concession intended to preserve negotiation opportunities.
Representative King offered a clarifying, and later adopted, amendment to include cross-claim plaintiffs in certain provisions. Debate touched on scope limits (the sponsor said the offer-of-judgment provision applies only to tier-1 claims up to $50,000 and excludes arbitration channels and tier-2/tier-3 claims) and the floor recorded passage with 58 yeas, 11 nays and 6 absences. Sponsors urged the bill as a balance between plaintiffs and insurers; opponents warned it may decrease flexibility for injured parties to obtain prejudgment interest where damages are uncertain.
