Patton v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.

Issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an identical issue in a new proceeding if that issue has already been decided in another proceeding. Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 104, 862 P2d 1293 (1993). Additionally, “a trial court awards prejudgment interest when ‘the exact amount is ascertainable or easily ascertainable . . . and where the time from which interest should run is also ascertainable.’” Strader v. Grane Mutual Ins. Co., 179 Or App 329, 338 (2002).

Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company (MOE) appealed a judgment against it and in favor of Plaintiff for the amount of $2.556 million, $1.023 million in pre-judgment interest, and $1.382 million in attorney fees. MOE assigned two errors to the trial court’s ruling that issue preclusion barred MOE from challenging Plaintiff’s claim to pre-judgment interest and the trial court’s decision giving Plaintiff pre-judgment interest. There are two cases that have been previously decided concerning this case and MOE argued that, because the amount of damages was different in each case, issue preclusion was not applicable in challenging the award of pre-judgment interest. Furthermore, MOE argued that the amount and the date from which the interest ran is not ascertainable for calculation. Issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an identical issue in a new proceeding if that issue has already been decided in another proceeding. Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 104, 862 P2d 1293 (1993). Additionally, “a trial court awards prejudgment interest when ‘the exact amount is ascertainable or easily ascertainable . . . and where the time from which interest should run is also ascertainable.’” Strader v. Grane Mutual Ins. Co., 179 Or App 329, 338 (2002). The Court held that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of issue preclusion because, although similar, the pre-judgment interest awarded in the first case was based on the cost of rebuilding the home the plaintiff lost and the second award was based on the rebuilding of the same home, but came to a different amount to award, and held that these issues were different. The Court also held that there was no ascertainable time the prejudgment interest should run based on the facts in the record. Award of prejudgment interest reversed, otherwise affirmed.