(a) In any civil action in which a verdict is rendered or a decision made for pecuniary
damages, there shall be added by the clerk of the court to the amount of damages interest
at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum thereon from the date the cause of action
accrued, which shall be included in the judgment entered therein. Post-judgment interest
shall be calculated at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum and accrue on both
the principal amount of the judgment and the prejudgment interest entered therein.
This section shall not apply until entry of judgment or to any contractual obligation
where interest is already provided.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in any action filed on or after January 1, 1987, for
personal injury or wrongful death filed against a licensed physician, hospital, clinic,
health maintenance organization, professional service corporation providing health
care services, dentist, or dental hygienist based on professional negligence. In all
such medical malpractice actions in which a verdict is rendered or a decision made
for pecuniary damages, there shall be added by the clerk of the court to the amount
of damages interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum thereon from the
date of written notice of the claim by the claimant or his or her representative to
the malpractice liability insurer, or to the medical or dental health care provider
or the filing of the civil action, whichever first occurs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
149
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case:
Webster v. Perrotta, 774 A.2d 68 (R.I. 2001).
Webster v. Perrotta, 774 A.2d 68 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 18× “The issue in that case concerned a breach of contract, and accordingly, we found that prejudgment interest should have been *83 awarded in accordance with G.L.1956 § 9-21-10. The exercise of police power is a purely governmental function.”
Gott v. Norberg, 417 A.2d 1352 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 34× “He relied on what he termed "fundamental fairness" to award interest, although the applicable refund statutes are silent concerning interest.”
Buckley v. Brown Plastics Mach., LLC, 368 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.R.I. 2005).
· cites it 28× “Therefore, the first two issues to be addressed in Plaintiffs motion: (1) whether he is entitled to prejudgment interest, and (2) if so, at what rate is the interest to be calculated, are governed by R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-21-10. 7 Putting aside Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a…”
Skaling v. Aetna Ins., 742 A.2d 282 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 12× “Skaling appealed the judgment, arguing that interest should have been added in accordance with G.L.1956 § 9-21-10 and G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.”
Paola v. Com. Union Assurance Companies, 461 A.2d 935 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 10× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-21-10 did not apply to arbitration proceedings when the matter is before the Superior Court solely for the purpose of confirming the award.”
Sophie F. Danforth v. Timothy T. More, Nos, 129 A.3d 63 (R.I. 2016).
· cites it 6× “” Second, More asserts that the hearing justice erred in awarding Danforth prejudgment interest because the deposit was in the physical possession of Danforth’s attorney during the period for which interest was awarded and — according to More — the suit was not a suit for…”
Holmes v. Bateson, 434 F. Supp. 1365 (D.R.I. 1977).
· cites it 11× “(b) PUNITIVE DAMAGES As part of their fourth claim for relief, the plaintiffs seek $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages, under Rhode Island law, from Bateson and Bronson.”
Andrade v. State, 448 A.2d 1293 (R.I. 1982).
· cites it 8× “The issue before us may be stated thus: Does the prejudgment interest statute § 9-21-10 apply to tort actions against the state.”
Cardi Corp. v. State, 561 A.2d 384 (R.I. 1989).
· cites it 11× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-21-10. That section provides in pertinent part: “In any civil action in which a verdict is rendered or a decision made for pecuniary damages, there shall be added by the clerk of the court to the amount of damages, interest at the rate of twelve…”
Paul Oden v. Carl Schwartz, M.D., 71 A.3d 438 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 9× “Schwartz contends that G.L.1956 § 9-21-10(b) (mandating prejudgment interest at a rate of 12 percent on pecuniary damages in medical malpractice actions) is unconstitutional — an issue of first impression for this Court.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-21-10(a) — 41 cases
Sophie F. Danforth v. Timothy T. More, Nos, 129 A.3d 63 (R.I. 2016).
“” Second, More asserts that the hearing justice erred in awarding Danforth prejudgment interest because the deposit was in the physical possession of Danforth’s attorney during the period for which interest was awarded and — according to More — the suit was not a suit for…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-21-10(a)(2) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-21-10(b) — 3 cases
Paul Oden v. Carl Schwartz, M.D., 71 A.3d 438 (R.I. 2013).
“Schwartz contends that G.L.1956 § 9-21-10(b) (mandating prejudgment interest at a rate of 12 percent on pecuniary damages in medical malpractice actions) is unconstitutional — an issue of first impression for this Court.”
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.