In successful action by plaintiff-bank, seeking recovery from defendant-title insurance company for breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence and negligent misrepresentation arising of scheme that resulted in losses to plaintiff from defaults on loans given to purchasers, who had little equity in subject condominiums, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest even though plaintiff was prevailing party. Under 12 USC section 1821(l), Dist. Ct. had discretion to decide whether prejudgment interest should be awarded at all. Moreover, section 1821(l) allowed Dist. Ct. to consider only prejudgment interest that would be appropriate, which allowed Dist. Ct. to consider state law that would have governed case, but for plaintiff- FDIC’s role as receiver of instant bank that made actual loans, especially where plaintiff’s claims against defendant are all state-law claims brought under federal jurisdiction by FIRREA. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly find that prejudgment interest was not appropriate under state law, since defendant was not entity that wrongfully withheld money from plaintiff. Dist. Ct. also did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment to increase damages awarded by jury, where issues of defendant’s causation were not sufficiently clear, so as to disturb jury’s verdict, which did not award all of plaintiff’s requested damages. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in finding that defendant was entitled to set-off of $500,000, which reflected amount that co-defendant agreed to pay plaintiff, where defendant failed to carry its burden of proving that any portion of settlement sum was attributable to same injuries for which defendant was found liable. (Partial dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Prejudgment Interest