Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123 (2026)
Prejudgment interest
✓ current as of May 2026
Prejudgment interest, i.e., interest as an element of, or in the nature of, damages, as permitted by the statutory and common laws of the state as of April 1, 1979, may be awarded by courts or juries in accordance with the principles of equity at any rate not in excess of a maximum effective rate of ten percent (10%) per annum; provided, that with respect to contracts subject to § 47-14-103, the maximum effective rates of prejudgment interest so awarded shall be the same as set by that section for the particular category of transaction involved. In addition, contracts may expressly provide for the imposition of the same or a different rate of interest to be paid after breach or default within the limits set by § 47-14-103.
Acts 1979, ch. 203, § 22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 210
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Est. of Ladd v. Marks, 247 S.W.3d 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Est. of Ladd v. Marks, 247 S.W.3d 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-123 (2006). The principle of equity is the foremost guiding consideration for a trial court when exercising its discretion to award or deny prejudgment interest.”
Story v. Lanier, 166 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “f April 1,1979, may be awarded by courts or juries in accordance with the principles of equity at any rate not in excess of a maximum effective rate of ten percent (10%) per annum; provided, that with respect to contracts subject to § 47-14-103, the maximum effective rates of…”
Win Myint & wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. 1998). “After the jury verdict, the trial court awarded $13,106 in prejudgment interest to the Myints, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-123 (1988). *924 The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s prejudgment interest ruling and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.”
Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “We also find that The Realty Shop is not entitled to prejudgment interest under Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-123 (1995) for two reasons.”
Stacy Foster-Henderson v. Memphis Health Ctr., Inc., 479 S.W.3d 214 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “The award of prejudgment interest is governed by statute, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-14-123. According to Section 47-14-123: Prejudgment interest, i.”
Kristen Cox MORRISON v. Paul ALLEN Et Al., 338 S.W.3d 417 (Tenn. 2011). “Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-14-123, pre-judgment interest "may be awarded by courts .”
Scholz v. S.B. Int'l, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “5 Thus, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-123 (1995) now provides, in part: Prejudgment interest, i.”
David Pittington v. Great Smoky Mountain Lumberjack Feud, 880 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2018). “at 6–9 (Page ID #2672–75); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123 . The district court declined to award front pay, increase Pittington’s back pay award, or hold a new trial as to damages, but it agreed that prejudgment interest on the back pay award was warranted.”
Cincinnati Ins. v. Grand Pointe, LLC, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (E.D. Tenn. 2007). “9 In Tennessee, prejudgment interest may be awarded under Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-123, Standee, Inc.”
Coleman Mgmt., Inc. v. Meyer, 304 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “The Defendants raised interesting arguments on appeal regarding the award of prejudgment interest, particularly the argument that prejudgment interest must be calculated according to T.C.A. § 47-14-123 rather than by some other methodology.”
Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn. 1993). “The next issue is whether the chancellor erred by granting the plaintiffs motion to add 10% prejudgment compound interest to the jury award. The defendant contends the award is improper or, in the alternative, if the award is proper, the calculation of compound interest is in…”
Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998). “Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-123, prejudgment interest may be awarded in accordance with the principles of equity.”
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.