Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts award prejudgment interest when verdict forms don't specify damage types? Donatelli v. Beaumont Explained
Summary
Plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest on a jury award of $137,543.48 that matched exactly their medical expenses following a motor vehicle accident. The trial court denied the motion because the verdict form did not distinguish between special and general damages, making it speculative to determine what portion represented special damages.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Donatelli v. Beaumont, plaintiffs sued for injuries sustained in a 2001 motor vehicle accident. Following a jury trial, the jury awarded damages of $137,543.48—exactly matching the plaintiff’s medical expenses. The verdict form contained only a single question asking what amount would “fairly and reasonably compensate” the plaintiff for damages, without differentiating between special damages and general damages. Plaintiffs then moved for prejudgment interest, arguing the award represented special damages since it precisely matched medical expenses.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether a trial court can award prejudgment interest under Utah Code section 78B-5-824 when a jury verdict fails to specify whether damages constitute special or general damages. The statute permits prejudgment interest only on “special damages actually incurred that are assessed by the verdict of the jury.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest, applying its reasoning from Nielsen v. Spencer. The court held that even when a jury award exactly matches medical expenses, courts cannot simply assume the award represents special damages rather than general damages. The court noted that juries may use medical expenses “as a rough proxy for the amount of emotional distress or mental pain” suffered. Additionally, the court found plaintiffs had waived any objection by failing to object to the inadequate verdict form while the jury was seated, despite multiple opportunities to do so.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the critical importance of proper verdict form drafting in personal injury cases. Practitioners seeking prejudgment interest must ensure jury verdict forms explicitly differentiate between special and general damages. The invited error doctrine prevents parties from benefiting from inadequate forms they themselves proposed. Courts will not speculate about jury intent regarding damage classifications, regardless of circumstantial evidence suggesting the jury’s reasoning.
Case Details
Case Name
Donatelli v. Beaumont
Citation
2009 UT App 34
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080020-CA
Date Decided
February 12, 2009
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court cannot award prejudgment interest on special damages when the jury verdict form fails to differentiate between special and general damages, and plaintiffs’ failure to object to an inadequate verdict form waives any objection.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding prejudgment interest
Practice Tip
Always ensure jury verdict forms clearly differentiate between special and general damages to preserve the right to seek prejudgment interest on special damages.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.