Utah Supreme Court
Can Utah courts award prejudgment interest on settlement amounts? Iron Head Constr. v. Gurney Explained
Summary
Iron Head Construction sued the Gurneys for additional construction costs beyond their contract price. During trial, the parties settled for $43,500 but reserved the question of prejudgment interest for the court. The trial court awarded $12,835.48 in prejudgment interest on the settlement amount, which the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Iron Head Construction contracted with the Gurneys to expand and remodel their home for $168,558. During construction, Iron Head claimed the Gurneys requested additional modifications worth $82,463.33, but the Gurneys refused to pay because the modifications were not agreed to in writing as required by their contract. Iron Head filed a mechanic’s lien and sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
During the third day of trial, the parties settled for $43,500, but reserved the question of whether Iron Head was entitled to prejudgment interest on the settlement amount. The settlement contained no admissions of liability and was not reduced to writing. The trial court awarded $12,835.48 in prejudgment interest, which the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.
Key Legal Issues
The Utah Supreme Court addressed whether courts can award prejudgment interest on settlement amounts when there is no finding of liability or admission of damages that can be calculated with mathematical certainty.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court reversed, holding that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on settlement amounts absent an admission or finding of liability. Under the Fell standard, prejudgment interest requires that “the loss ha[s] been fixed as of a definite time and the amount of the loss can be calculated with mathematical accuracy in accordance with well-established rules of damages.”
The Court emphasized three key problems: (1) the settlement involved no finding of damages or liability, (2) the settlement amount could not be calculated to mathematical certainty, and (3) allowing prejudgment interest on settlements undermines Utah’s public policy of encouraging settlements. The “rather round sum of $43,500” was essentially “plucked from the air” without any basis in proven damages.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that settlement amounts, by their nature, cannot support judicial awards of prejudgment interest unless they include specific admissions of liability and mathematically certain damages. Practitioners should explicitly address prejudgment interest in settlement agreements to avoid post-settlement disputes. The ruling reinforces Utah’s strong policy favoring settlements by preventing courts from imposing additional financial burdens that could discourage resolution.
Case Details
Case Name
Iron Head Constr. v. Gurney
Citation
2009 UT 25
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20080099
Date Decided
April 24, 2009
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Courts cannot award prejudgment interest on settlement amounts that lack an admission or finding of liability and cannot be calculated with mathematical certainty.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding prejudgment interest awards
Practice Tip
When negotiating settlements, explicitly address prejudgment interest in the agreement to avoid post-settlement disputes about entitlement to such interest.
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.