affirming the trial court’s grant of prejudgment interest where damages were based on clearly ascertainable statements of time spent and materials purchased
How later courts described this case
- affirming the trial court’s grant of prejudgment interest where damages were based on clearly ascertainable statements of time spent and materials purchased
- “Once it appears that the damages may be ascertained with reasonable precision, an award of prejudgment interest is mandatory.”
- prejudgment interest may be awarded where the amount of damages can be ascertained by simple mathematical computation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the decision of my colleagues to affirm the decision of the trial court on the plaintiffs complaint, but I respectfully dissent from their decision affirming the trial court’s order denying relief on the defendants’ counterclaim.
I do not believe that a breach of the Home Improvement Contract Act (HICA) is subject to the provisions of IC 24-5-0.5-2(a)(8) and must be either uncured or incurable. The relevant section in HICA (IC 24-5-11-14) says that failing to provide a written contract is a deceptive act that is actionable under IC 24-5-0.5-4 and “is subject to the penalties under IC 24-5-0.5.” No mention is made of cure on incurability.
I believe that imposing the cure provisions undermines HICA’s purposes and its requirement of written contract for home improvement projects. A home improvement contractor could escape liability (as here) by simply proceeding without a written contract unless the homeowners give notice at which time the contractor could cure the deceptive act by tendering a written contract.