Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.040 (2026)

Interest on judgments, how regulated

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

408.040. Interest on judgments, how regulated — prejudgment interest allowed when, procedure. — 1. Judgments shall accrue interest on the judgment balance as set forth in this section. The "judgment balance" is defined as the total amount of the judgment awarded on the day judgment is entered including, but not limited to, principal, prejudgment interest, and all costs and fees. Postjudgment payments or credits shall be applied first to postjudgment costs, then to postjudgment interest, and then to the judgment balance.

2. In all nontort actions, interest shall be allowed on all money due upon any judgment or order of any court from the date judgment is entered by the trial court until satisfaction be made by payment, accord or sale of property; all such judgments and orders for money upon contracts bearing more than nine percent interest shall bear the same interest borne by such contracts, and all other judgments and orders for money shall bear nine percent per annum until satisfaction made as aforesaid.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, in tort actions, interest shall be allowed on all money due upon any judgment or order of any court from the date judgment is entered by the trial court until full satisfaction. All such judgments and orders for money shall bear a per annum interest rate equal to the intended Federal Funds Rate, as established by the Federal Reserve Board, plus five percent, until full satisfaction is made. The judgment shall state the applicable interest rate, which shall not vary once entered. In tort actions, if a claimant has made a demand for payment of a claim or an offer of settlement of a claim, to the party, parties or their representatives, and to such party's liability insurer if known to the claimant, and the amount of the judgment or order exceeds the demand for payment or offer of settlement, then prejudgment interest shall be awarded, calculated from a date ninety days after the demand or offer was received, as shown by the certified mail return receipt, or from the date the demand or offer was rejected without counter offer, whichever is earlier. In order to qualify as a demand or offer pursuant to this section, such demand must:

(1) Be in writing and sent by certified mail return receipt requested; and

(2) Be accompanied by an affidavit of the claimant describing the nature of the claim, the nature of any injuries claimed and a general computation of any category of damages sought by the claimant with supporting documentation, if any is reasonably available; and

(3) For wrongful death, personal injury, and bodily injury claims, be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of medical providers who have provided treatment to the claimant or decedent for such injuries, copies of all reasonably available medical bills, a list of employers if the claimant is seeking damages for loss of wages or earning, and written authorizations sufficient to allow the party, its representatives, and liability insurer if known to the claimant to obtain records from all employers and medical care providers; and

(4) Reference this section and be left open for ninety days.

Unless the parties agree in writing to a longer period of time, if the claimant fails to file a cause of action in circuit court prior to a date one hundred twenty days after the demand or offer was received, then the court shall not award prejudgment interest to the claimant. If the claimant is a minor or incompetent or deceased, the affidavit may be signed by any person who reasonably appears to be qualified to act as next friend or conservator or personal representative. If the claim is one for wrongful death, the affidavit may be signed by any person qualified pursuant to section 537.080 to make claim for the death. Nothing contained herein shall limit the right of a claimant, in actions other than tort actions, to recover prejudgment interest as otherwise provided by law or contract.

4. In tort actions, a judgment for prejudgment interest awarded pursuant to this section should bear interest at a per annum interest rate equal to the intended Federal Funds Rate, as established by the Federal Reserve Board, plus three percent. The judgment shall state the applicable interest rate, which shall not vary once entered.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3228, A.L. 1979 H.B. 85, A.L. 1987 H.B. 700, A.L. 2005 H.B. 393, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1231 merged with S.B. 621 merged with S.B. 672)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 2841; 1919 § 6493; 1909 § 7181

Effective 1-15-15

CROSS REFERENCES:

Applicability of statute changes to cases filed after August 28, 2005, 538.305

Interest as part of damages in action for conversion of goods, 537.520

Medical and health care providers, malpractice sections, Chap. 538; section 408.040 not applicable, 538.300

(1953) Where insurance companies which disclaimed liability to mortgagor, deposited proceeds of fire insurance policies in court during pendency of litigation for sole use of mortgagee and claimed right of subrogation to recover money back from mortgagor although he had paid premiums, they were liable for interest from date of judgment of circuit court in favor of mortgagor. City of New York Ins. Co. v. Stephens (Mo.), 260 S.W.2d 558.

(1957) Where allowance of claim by probate court was affirmed by circuit court but reversed and remanded on appeal and thereafter again allowed by judgment of circuit court, interest ran from date of last judgment of circuit court only. Minor v. Lillard (Mo.), 306 S.W.2d 541.

(1960) Where city deposited amount of judgment in condemnation action in court, it could enforce possession of the condemned land even though interest on judgment was not so deposited. Mayor, etc. of Liberty v. Boggess (A.), 332 S.W.2d 305.

(1964) Where prevailing plaintiff was required to remit part of judgment and a new judgment for reduced amount was entered as of the date of the original judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the amount of the new judgment from the date of the original judgment. Walton v. United States Steel Corp. (A.), 378 S.W.2d 240.

(1966) In suit for disbursement of funds paid into court, one interpleader is not entitled to interest for the period he was denied payment due to other interpleader's unsuccessful appeal. Winterton v. Van Zandt (A.), 397 S.W.2d 693.

(1994) Where there is an offer of settlement for one dollar less than insurance coverage, offer is not ambiguous for purposes of statute and where judgment entered exceeded offer, statute mandates award of prejudgment interest. Open-ended prayer for relief is sufficient for plaintiff to be entitled to recover prejudgment interest. Specific pleading for prejudgment interest is not necessary under statute. Gibson v. Musil, 844 F.Supp. 1579 (W.D. Mo.).

(1998) Acknowledgment or actual notice of settlement offer is insufficient to obtain prejudgment interest. Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 439 (Mo.banc), overruling Larabee v. Washington, 793 S.W.2d 357 (Mo.App. W.D.)

(2017) Post-judgment interest for nontort actions is awarded as a matter of law under 408.040.1 and automatically accrues, regardless of whether expressly included in the judgment. Dennis v. Riezman Berger, P.C., 529 S.W.3d 318 (Mo.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 209 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Strong v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 261 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Strong v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 261 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 80× “Cyanamid claims there was insufficient evidence of causation to support Cortez's claims of product defect and negligent manufacture. In his cross-appeal, Cortez argues that 1) the Court erred when it denied his motion to amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest under…”

William Dieser, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., Appellant/Cross-Respondent., 498 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 26× “” Subsections 2 and 3 of section 408.040 then govern the accrual of post-judgment interest.”

Bowan Ex Rel. Bowan v. Express Med. Transporters, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 38× “8 Section 408.040 allows the recovery of prejudgment interest where the amount of a judgment exceeds a pre-trial settlement demand made in compliance with the statute.”

Good Hope Missionary Baptist Church v. St. Louis Alarm Monitoring Co., 358 S.W.3d 528 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 52× “Both parties agree that Good Hope’s January 2005 demand letter was in full compliance with section 408.040 RSMo 2000 which governs pre-judgment interest in tort cases.”

Boggs Ex Rel. Boggs v. Lay, 164 S.W.3d 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “The court also found that the plaintiff had submitted certified demand letters to defendants ADM, Lay, and Dean Hinkle, and that the demand complied with the prejudgment-interest statute, Section 408.040 RSMo. Accordingly, the court ordered prejudgment interest against these…”

Lindquist v. Mid Am. Orthopaedic Surgery, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 593 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 15× “Mid America asserts that the circuit court erred in awarding post-judgment interest dating back to the June 18, 2003, judgment and that, under section 408.040, RSMo Supp.2004, interest should only run from the February 21, 2006, judgment.”

Sparks v. Sparks, 417 S.W.3d 269 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “330 does not require a trial court to award interest, section 408.040 “most certainly does” when an ordered equalization payment is payable in installments.”

Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 8× “On October 13, 1994, plaintiffs sent by certified mail a demand letter that read in pertinent part as follows: Finally, pursuant to § 408.040, RSMo. (1986), please let this letter serve as a settlement demand in the sum of $10 million to resolve all of the wrongful death and…”

Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 S.W.3d 655 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “The Johnsons' demand letter satisfied the requisites of Section 408.040, RSMo 2000, which authorizes individuals with a claim like the Johnsons' to make a demand to an insurance company for either the policy limits or for a specific amount of money.”

Lester v. Sayles, 850 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 7× “040, interest accrues from the date sixty days after a demand for payment or an offer to settle is made, or from the date the demand or offer was rejected without counter offer, whichever is the earlieruntil the date of final judgment. Interest accrues even though plaintiffs…”

Smith v. Shaw, 159 S.W.3d 830 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 6× “The letter stated that in accordance with section 408.040 the offer to settle would remain open for 60 days from the date of the letter.”

Stromberg v. Moore, 170 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 17× “On cross-appeal, Stromberg argues the trial court erred in denying him damages by way of interest in its application of Section 408.040. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.”

Show all 209 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.040(1) — 2 cases

Johnson v. BFI Waste Sys. of North Am., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

McClelland v. Azrilyan, 31 F. Supp. 2d 707 (W.D. Mo. 1998).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.040(2) — 7 cases

Bowan Ex Rel. Bowan v. Express Med. Transporters, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “8 Section 408.040 allows the recovery of prejudgment interest where the amount of a judgment exceeds a pre-trial settlement demand made in compliance with the statute.”

Lester v. Sayles, 850 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. 1993). “040, interest accrues from the date sixty days after a demand for payment or an offer to settle is made, or from the date the demand or offer was rejected without counter offer, whichever is the earlieruntil the date of final judgment. Interest accrues even though plaintiffs…”

English Ex Rel. Davis v. Hershewe, 312 S.W.3d 402 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

First Nat'l Bank of Steeleville, Nat'l Ass'n v. ERB Equip. Co., 972 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Gramc v. Millar Elevator Co./Schindler Enter., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Mo. 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.