prejudgment interest rule in New Jersey

2013Levine v. Busick, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (involving the validity of Rule 4:42-11(b), which authorizes] prejudgment interest in tort actions), where the Court explained the rule’s interaction with the Act: After the adoption of the prejudgment interest rule ..., the Legislature enacted the [Act,] which provides in N.J.S.A 59:9-2a that “[n]o interest shall accrue prior to the entry of judgment against a public entity or public employee.” We have approved an amendment to our rule of Court which will except that situation.

1979The Appellate Division viewed the sole question raised by the appeal as "whether or not the trial judge erred in denying prejudgment interest on the verdict obtained by plaintiffs * *." Its approach to resolution of this issue began with a review of the history of the prejudgment interest rule, R. 4:42-11(b), and of the policy considerations which prompted this Court to adopt the Rule, as extensively set forth in Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 733 (1973).

2013Levine v. Busick, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (involving the validity of Rule 4:42-11(b), which authorizes] prejudgment interest in tort actions), where the Court explained the rule’s interaction with the Act: After the adoption of the prejudgment interest rule ..., the Legislature enacted the [Act,] which provides in N.J.S.A 59:9-2a that “[n]o interest shall accrue prior to the entry of judgment against a public entity or public employee.” We have approved an amendment to our rule of Court which will except that situation.

1979The Appellate Division viewed the sole question raised by the appeal as "whether or not the trial judge erred in denying prejudgment interest on the verdict obtained by plaintiffs * *." Its approach to resolution of this issue began with a review of the history of the prejudgment interest rule, R. 4:42-11(b), and of the policy considerations which prompted this Court to adopt the Rule, as extensively set forth in Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 733 (1973).

2013Levine v. Busick, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (involving the validity of Rule 4:42-11(b), which authorizes] prejudgment interest in tort actions), where the Court explained the rule’s interaction with the Act: After the adoption of the prejudgment interest rule ..., the Legislature enacted the [Act,] which provides in N.J.S.A 59:9-2a that “[n]o interest shall accrue prior to the entry of judgment against a public entity or public employee.” We have approved an amendment to our rule of Court which will except that situation.

1979The Appellate Division viewed the sole question raised by the appeal as "whether or not the trial judge erred in denying prejudgment interest on the verdict obtained by plaintiffs * *." Its approach to resolution of this issue began with a review of the history of the prejudgment interest rule, R. 4:42-11(b), and of the policy considerations which prompted this Court to adopt the Rule, as extensively set forth in Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 733 (1973).

1985To the extent that Quinones v. Passaic Boys Club, 183 N.J.

1985To the extent that Quinones v. Passaic Boys Club, 183 N.J.

2013Likewise, in Potente v. County of Hudson, 187 N.J. 103, 114 , 900 A.2d 787 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court rejected as “simply wrong” the analysis of some prior cases that “prejudgment interest will not be awarded against a public entity except where provided by statute.” The Court explained that [w]hat the [pre-judgment interest] rule actually says is that pre-judgment interest shall be awarded against all defendants unless it is prohibited by applicable law.

2013Likewise, in Potente v. County of Hudson, 187 N.J. 103, 114 , 900 A.2d 787 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court rejected as “simply wrong” the analysis of some prior cases that “prejudgment interest will not be awarded against a public entity except where provided by statute.” The Court explained that [w]hat the [pre-judgment interest] rule actually says is that pre-judgment interest shall be awarded against all defendants unless it is prohibited by applicable law.

2000Our decision here is consonant with our conclusion in Statham , where Judge (now Justice) Long concluded that despite the Court's "less than enthusiastic imprimatur in Ruff , where the applicability of the compensation rationale for prejudgment interest on future losses was characterized as `questionable'... given the presently articulated standards in Busik and Ruff , nothing about this case warrants suspension of the prejudgment interest rule." 253 N.J.Super. at 618 , 602 A. 2d 779 .

2000Our decision here is consonant with our conclusion in Statham , where Judge (now Justice) Long concluded that despite the Court's "less than enthusiastic imprimatur in Ruff , where the applicability of the compensation rationale for prejudgment interest on future losses was characterized as `questionable'... given the presently articulated standards in Busik and Ruff , nothing about this case warrants suspension of the prejudgment interest rule." 253 N.J.Super. at 618 , 602 A. 2d 779 .

2000The Court at footnote 6 in Ruff referred the matter to the Civil Practice Committee, citing Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 , 103 S.Ct. 2541 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 768 (1983).

2000The Court at footnote 6 in Ruff referred the matter to the Civil Practice Committee, citing Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 , 103 S.Ct. 2541 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 768 (1983).

1975With respect to the interest question, Crudup v. Marrero, 57 N.J. 353 (1971), is ample authority to justify the application of the prejudgment interest rule, R. 4:42-11(b), against the Fund in this case.