Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102

Section 5-12-102(1) does not require prejudgment interest on an insurer’s recovered defense costs when the insurer has not established that Colorado law requires interest in those circumstances.

Valley Forge Insurance v. Health Care Management Partners, Ltd. · filed 2010-08-16(1)

In the absence of any Colorado authority applying Section 5-12-102(1) to an insurer’s recoupment claim, and in light of the parties’ plausible conflicting arguments about the statute’s applicability, we are unable to conclude that the insurers have met their burden of establishing that Colorado law requires an award ... of prejudgment interest in these circumstances.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) does not award prejudgment interest on prospective repair costs before the verdict when the plaintiff has not paid for the repairs.

Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC · filed 2010-11-10(1)(b)

In actions that do not involve personal injury, prejudgment interest is governed by section 5-12-102(1)(b), C.R.S.2010. ... Thus, we further conclude that their repair costs were prospective in nature and were wrongfully withheld as of the date of the verdict.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) provides statutory interest at eight percent per year, compounded annually, on the investment principal awarded as damages.

Sensoria, LLC v. Kaweske · filed 2025-04-17(1)(b)

Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory interest on their investment principal pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(1)(b), which provides for interest at eight percent per annum compounded annually. However, given the lapse of time between the filing of the Motion and the date of this Order, Plaintiffs’ requested amount is no longer accurate. Consequently, Plaintiffs shall file a Notice with the Court with the updated damages total inclusive of the new amount of statutory interest it believes should be awarded.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) requires evidence of the withholding party’s gain or benefit before a court may award prejudgment interest above 8% per annum.

Chaparral Resources, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. · filed 1988-06-14(1)(a)

Where, as here, prejudgment interest is sought pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 5-12-102(1)(a), we conclude that a trial court faced with a record devoid of evidence relating to the amount of the withholding party's gain or benefit lacks discretion to award interest at a rate other than the statutory rate of 8% per annum.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) provides for prejudgment interest at eight percent per year, compounded annually, on money wrongfully withheld.

University of Colorado Foundation, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co. · filed 2002-08-13(1)(b)

I award Plaintiffs prejudgment interest to be calculated at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum, compounded annually pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 5-12-102(l)(b) (2000).

Section 5-12-102(1) supplies an 8% annual rate for interest on an arbitration award through judgment.

PeopleSoft, Inc. v. Amherst, L.L.C. · filed 2005-04-25(1)

Amherst, LLC shall have interest on the Award based on Colorado’s statutory rate from December 20, 2004 through the date of judgment at 8% per annum pursuant to C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1).

Section 5-12-102’s eight percent rate for wrongfully withheld property does not apply to loss of use and enjoyment damages that derive from personal injury.

Antolovich v. Brown Group Retail, Inc. · filed 2007-08-23(1)(b)

Section 5-12-102(1)(a)(b), C.R.S.2006, permits a court to award interest at "eight percent per annum" for the wrongful withholding of property. ... Therefore, under the unique cireumstances presented in this case, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that homeowners' loss of use and enjoyment damages were personal injury damages which accrued interest at the statutory nine percent rate.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) requires specific proof of the amount gained from withheld funds to award moratory interest.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita · filed 2000-09-13(1)(a)

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) requires “specific proof” of the amount gained from withheld funds.

Section 5-12-102 allows a claimant to elect eight percent annual interest on wrongfully withheld money; the court treated the absence of evidence of the withholding party’s benefit as that election.

Cellport Systems, Inc. v. Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG · filed 2013-01-02

Cellport has not introduced evidence of the benefit to Peiker of withholding royalties due on CKII’s or CKIV’s sold to Daimler, which I interpret as its election to accept the statutory rate in the event that the Court determines that paragraph 3.4 of the Agreement does not apply.

Section 5-12-102 permits prejudgment interest at eight percent per year, compounded annually, when a claimant elects that rate for wrongfully withheld money.

Hyungkeun Sun v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2015-08-11(1)(b)

Under this standard, the bankruptcy court did not err in looking to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102 and choosing 8% for the rate of prejudgment interest.

Section 5-12-102(4)(a) sets prejudgment interest at 8% or at the rate specified in a written agreement between the parties.

Tatonka Capital Corp. v. Connelly · filed 2019-05-20(4)(a)

Under C.R.S. § 5-12-102(4)(a), the appropriate rate for prejudgment interest is either 8% or the amount agreed upon by the parties in a written instrument that provides for the payment of interest at a specified rate.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) supplies the eight percent prejudgment interest rate for wrongfully withheld money when a certificate’s coupon rate covers investment income rather than the damages sought.

United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corporation · filed 2020-01-30(1)(b)

The Court agrees with plaintiff that § 5-12-102(1) governs the award of prejudgment interest in this case. ... Accordingly, § 5-12-102(1)(b) applies. ... Here, however, plaintiff is not suing for money owed under the Certificate, and the Coupon Rate reflects an element of UWB’s investment income, not an agreement as to the lost time value of money. Accordingly, the default statutory rate of eight percent, and not the Coupon Rate, will govern the Court’s calculation of prejudgment interest.

Section 5-12-102(1) provides prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 8% on the unpaid contract amount.

Ultegra Financial Partners, Inc. v. Marzolf · filed 2020-02-27(1)

The Court further finds that, under Colorado law (which applies in this diversity case), Ultegra is entitled to prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 8%. C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1), see generally Romero v. Helmerich & Payne Intl. Drilling Co., 768 Fed.Appx. 838, 845 (10th Cir. 2019).

Section 5-12-102(2) provides an eight percent annual prejudgment interest rate, compounded annually.

Wilson v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation · filed 2021-06-07(2)

In the absence of any suggestion or analysis from the parties, the Court in its discretion will use the Colorado prejudgment interest rate: eight percent per annum compounded annually from the date that the payments became due. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(2).

Section 5-12-102 allows postjudgment interest at the rate specified in a contract.

Zivaro, Inc. v. Bohica Associates Corporation · filed 2022-01-25(4)(a)

ORDERED that post judgment interest shall accrue at a rate of 18% per annum pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) permits prejudgment interest at an annual rate of eight percent.

MSC Safety Solutions, LLC v. Trivent Safety Consulting, LLC · filed 2022-02-16(1)(b)

Plaintiff seeks eight percent prejudgment interest under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(1)(b). ... I find no basis to deviate from this established case authority and will award prejudgment interest at the Colorado statutory rate of eight percent.

Section 5-12-102 authorizes prejudgment interest at eight percent per year, compounded annually.

Western Acceptance LLC v. General Agriculture Inc. · filed 2023-07-28

Colorado law authorizes a prejudgment interest rate of eight percent per annum, compounded annually. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102. The court finds this rate to be appropriate here, given that Western has been deprived of the value of the distillation machine it paid for, as well as the equipment that GenAg took from its facility.

Moratory interest requires evidence linking the wrongfully withheld funds to the withholding party's actual gain or benefit.

Patterson v. BP America Production Co. · filed 2015-03-12(1)(a)

Here, we are guided by the plain language of section 5-12-102(1)(a), see Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 408 (Colo.1997) (applying the statute as written when language is clear and unambiguous), and case law interpreting its provisions-both of which require some causal link between the withheld funds and defendant's resulting gain or benefit.

Section 5-12-102 provides moratory interest for wrongful withholding in contract and property damage cases, but does not award it in a probate case without wrongful withholding.

Beren v. Beren · filed 2015-05-11(1)-(8)

Interest is also not appropriate under section 5-12-102, C.R.S. (2014). Section 5-12-102(1)-(8) codified the doctrine of moratory interest in contract and property damage cases. ... There has been no "wrongful withholding" here because Mrs. Beren did not breach a contract, nor has she damaged physical property.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) provides 8% annual prejudgment interest for contract damages involving purely economic loss.

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. v. Flatiron AECOM, LLC · filed 2024-08-15(1)(b)

Accordingly, the Court amends the prejudgment interest rate from 9% to 8% per annum pursuant to C.R.S. § 5-12-102.

Section 5-12-102 provides prejudgment interest at 8% per year, compounded annually, on the damages awarded.

Schmetter & Associates, LLC v. Bernzott Capital Advisors Corporation · filed 2024-12-17

Bernzott must pay Schmetter statutory prejudgment interest at the rate of 8% per year, compounded annually, on all damages ordered herein. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102 (2023).

When no interest rate is agreed, § 5-12-102(1) provides for prejudgment interest at 8% per year from the date money was wrongfully withheld.

Lighthouse for the Blind v. Ki Me Co · filed 2025-11-24(1)

Under Colorado law, where there is no agreement as to the rate of pre-judgment interest, pre-judgment interest is calculated at a rate of 8% per annum accruing from the date of wrongful withholding. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(1).

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) permits eight percent annual compound interest from the date property is wrongfully withheld.

Stansbury v. Commissioner · filed 1996-12-23(1)(b)

We agree with the Tax Court that, all things considered, there was a “wrongful ... withholding” within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102.

Subsection (1) permits a claimant to elect moratory interest for wrongfully withheld money or property whether the claim is liquidated or unliquidated.

Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp. · filed 1994-06-15(1)

This, coupled with the fact that Anschutz has not cited this Court to any decision, to the contrary, leads this Court to conclude that the availability of moratory interest under subsection (1) turns on whether the money or property was wrongfully withheld, and not whether the claim was liquidated or unliquidated.

Section 5-12-102 allows interest on wrongfully withheld money or property even when an arbitration award is not a monetary judgment and the amount was unliquidated when withheld.

Wilson v. Estate of Lawrence · filed 1995-07-27(1), (3)

Section 5-12-102(1), C.R.S. (1992 RepLVol. 2) authorizes the award of interest whenever money or property has been wrongfully withheld. Section 5-12-102(3), C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2) provides that interest shall be allowed pursuant to subsection 1 even if the amount is unliquidated at the time of the wrongful withholding. Therefore, there is no requirement that the arbitration award be a monetary judgment before interest is awarded.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) treats a failure to pay money when due as wrongful withholding without requiring tortious conduct or bad faith.

Peterman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 2000-05-25(1)(a)

Under the statute, a wrongful withholding only requires the failure to pay or deliver money or property when there is an obligation to do so.

Section 5-12-102 requires interest when a person fails to pay money when obligated to do so, including insurance proceeds withheld during a coverage dispute.

Ross v. Old Republic Insurance Co. · filed 2006-03-23

When money has been wrongfully withheld, interest shall be an amount that fully recognizes the gain or benefit realized by the person withholding such money from the date of wrongful withholding to the date of payment. Section 5-12-102, C.R.S.2005. Under this statute, wrongful withholding only requires failure to pay or deliver money when obligated to do so.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) allows interest when money or property is wrongfully withheld; wrongful withholding need not involve fraud or tortious conduct.

Scott v. Commissioner · filed 2001-01-04(1)(a)

The Tenth Circuit has held that under Colorado law “a ‘wrongful withholding’ need not involve actual fraud, or indeed be tortious in nature.” Stansbury, 102 F.3d at 1093. Under those broad parameters, we do not find clear error in the Tax Court’s determination that Appellant wrongfully withheld the delinquent taxes.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) allows interest on money paid under an order later reversed, from the date of payment until the order awarding interest.

Rodgers v. Colorado Department of Human Services · filed 2001-11-23(1)(b)

The order is reversed to the extent it denies CMHIP's request for interest, and the case is remanded with directions for the Board to enter an additional order awarding CMHIP interest pursuant to § 5-12-102(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, from the date CMHIP paid complainant until the date of the order.

Section 5-12-102 provides interest for wrongfully withheld money, except when the plaintiff seeks personal injury damages under section 13-21-101(1).

USAA v. Parker · filed 2009-01-20(1)

As the court of appeals noted, section 5-12-102 indicates that it applies in all cases where such damages are sought, except in situations where the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury under section 13-21-101(1).

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) does not allow prejudgment interest on disputed property royalties before ownership is determined and the claimant becomes entitled to them.

Beaver Creek Ranch, L.P. v. Gordman Leverich Ltd. Liability Ltd. Partnership · filed 2009-05-28(1)(b)

Beaver Creek's damages could not be measured until ownership of the disputed property was determined. Thus, Beaver Creek Ranch only became entitled to the royalties after it obtained a judgment from the court quieting title to the disputed property.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) allows prejudgment interest when an attorney’s lien and request to escrow all fees deprive another attorney of money to which only that attorney is entitled.

Larson, P.C. v. Grinnan · filed 2017-06-15(1)(a)

Yet, by filing an attorney’s lien against all the fees and then requesting that the court place them “in trust or escrow until this dispute is resolved,” Grinnan deprived Larson of the use of money to which only he was entitled. These actions establish a wrongful withholding under section 5-12-102(1)(a).

Section 5-12-102 does not award prejudgment interest in every breach of contract action; the claim must involve money or property wrongfully withheld.

Lowell Staats Mining Co. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc. · filed 1986-10-16(1)

Specifically, I take issue with applying the statutory phrase “money or property ... withheld” to all garden-variety breach of contract cases. Such an interpretation strays too far from the plain, ordinary meaning of the statutory language.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) does not permit an award that compensates the injured party twice for the same wrong.

Great Western Sugar Co. v. KN Energy, Inc. · filed 1989-05-04(1)(a)

The wording and legislative history of § 5-12-102(l)(a) and the commitment to fairness underlying the doctrine of morato-ry interest on which the amended statute was based lead us to conclude that the statute may not be used to impose double or other punitive damages. Thus, to the extent that an award made under the statute provides double compensation for the same wrong, it cannot stand.

Section 5-12-102 does not permit prejudgment interest that would compensate a plaintiff twice for the same loss of use of money.

Scognamillo v. Olsen · filed 1990-02-01

Finally, plaintiff Fair cloth contends on cross-appeal that the trial court erred in failing to award interest pursuant to § 5-12-102, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 2), on the total amount of the Ailing judgment including the accrued interest. We disagree. ... Allowing plaintiff to recover interest on this total amount would, in effect, twice compensate plaintiff for his “loss.” ... Hence, the trial court properly denied plaintiff Faircloth’s motion for interest on the total amount of the Ailing judgment as well as on the accrued interest thereon.

Section 5-12-102 does not govern prejudgment interest in personal injury actions.

Bradley v. Guess · filed 1990-10-09

Inasmuch as prejudgment interest in personal injury actions is governed by § 13-21-101 and not § 5-12-102, we consider both Jacobs and Coale to be unpersuasive in this instance.

Section 5-12-102(1) generally applies to debt, contract, and property damage cases and does not provide interest on personal injury claims.

Schnacker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 1992-07-02(1)

However, § 5-12-102(1), C.R.S. (1991 Cum. Supp.) generally pertains to post-judgment interest which applies to debt, contract, and property damage cases. Interest on personal injury claims is controlled by § 13-21-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A).

Section 5-12-102 does not allow prejudgment interest on emotional distress damages.

Allabashi v. Lincoln National Sales Corp. of Colorado-Wyoming · filed 1991-01-31(1)(a)

The award of emotional distress damages is not intended to compensate for the wrongful delay in obtaining money or property. Neither the language nor the purpose of § 5-12-102 justifies awarding prejudgment interest for emotional distress damages.

Section 5-12-102 permits prejudgment interest only on damages incurred before judgment, not on future damages.

Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. East Hampden Associates Ltd. · filed 1995-03-23

Lastly, Life Care asserts that the trial court misconstrued § 5-12-102, C.R.S. (1992 RepLVol. 2), and erred in awarding East Hampden $2.1 million in prejudgment interest on the damages awards. We agree. ... Therefore, we conclude the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest must be reversed and an award of prejudgment interest entered on only those damages incurred prior to the entry of judgment.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) generally allows interest on money wrongfully withheld, but a workers’ compensation insurer cannot recover that interest when the subrogation statute caps its recovery at the amount of its liability.

Husson v. Meeker · filed 1991-05-23(1)(b)

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, as the more specific statute, § 8-52-108 prevails as an exception to § 5-12-102, which is a statute of broader scope.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) permits prejudgment interest on the full amount of lost net profits caused by a breach of contract.

Logixx Automation, Inc. v. Lawrence Michels Family Trust · filed 2002-09-12(1)(b)

In light of this precedent, we conclude that the trial court properly awarded prejudgment interest on the full damages amount, which reflected the total of lost net profits the companies would have realized but for breach of the settlement agreement.

Prejudgment interest on lost profits must be calculated from when the actual damages were incurred, rather than on future losses.

Western Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc. · filed 2006-03-23(1)(b)

Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court to recalculate the award of prejudgment interest on the judgment entered against E-One based upon specific findings of when the actual damages were incurred.

Section 5-12-102 allows prejudgment interest only on damages incurred before judgment, not on future damages.

Harris Group, Inc. v. Robinson · filed 2009-03-05

The award of prejudgment interest in this case is governed by section 5-12-102, C.R.S.2008. ... On remand, the trial court must award prejudgment interest only on the damages that were incurred before judgment was entered.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) requires at least eight percent annual prejudgment interest on wrongfully withheld funds; a court cannot reduce that award because of delay in the case.

Echo Acceptance Corp. v. Household Retail Services, Inc. · filed 2001-09-28(1)(b)

We hold that the court abused its discretion by reducing the statutory interest award, and that portion of the district court’s judgment is hereby vacated.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) allows interest based on the gain from wrongfully withheld money, but that interest is unavailable in a dissenters' rights appraisal governed by § 7-118-101(5).

Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc. · filed 2002-01-14(1)(a)

Shareholder argues that holding company wrongfully withheld money from it, and therefore the trial court should have imposed interest based on § 5-12-102(1)(a), C.R.S.2000, which allows interest in an amount that recognizes the gain or benefit realized by the person wrongfully withholding such money. However, interest pursuant to § 5-12-102(1)(a) is not an option under § 7-118-101(5).

Section 5-12-102 excludes UIM claims arising from personal injuries when § 13-21-101 governs prejudgment interest.

Parker v. USAA · filed 2007-05-03(1)

Furthermore, even if we assume that it is not clear whether Parker’s claim is based on tort or contract, the exclusionary clause of § 5-12-102 mandates that § 13-21-101 applies here.

Section 5-12-102(a) does not require a separate prejudgment interest award when the jury’s damages award already includes interest.

Harper v. Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners · filed 2007-08-29(a)

However, given the district court’s familiarity with the litigation, we see no indication that it abused its discretion in concluding that prejudgment interest was included in the jury award.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) governs prejudgment interest on economic damages from wrongful withholding.

Schuessler v. Wolter · filed 2012-05-24(1)(a)

Accordingly, on remand, the court should compute the prejudgment interest on Schuessler's economic damages based on the wrongful withholding statute, section 5-12-102(1)(a), C.R.S.2011, rather than section 13-21-101.

Section 5-12-102(1) provides prejudgment interest on an award for legal expenses.

Boulders at Escalante LLC v. Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti PC · filed 2015-06-18(1)

Liability for legal expenses invokes a straightforward application of the prejudgment interest statute. See § 5-12-102(1), C.R.S.2014.

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) allows prejudgment interest on past wages lost through wrongful termination, but not on future wages an at-will employee had no right to receive.

Romero v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l · filed 2019-04-12(1)(a)

As the district court correctly concluded, Romero is entitled to prejudgment interest only on the loss of past income. An at-will employee has no property interest in future wages, therefore such wages cannot be considered “something to which [the plaintiff] was otherwise entitled.”

Section 5-12-102 requires prejudgment interest to accrue on a jury verdict before a settlement payment is set off.

Marso v. Homeowners Realty, Inc · filed 2018-02-08(1)(b)

By law, those damages included statutory prejudgment interest. See § 5-12-102. Making the setoff before the interest accrues means that the interest component of a jury verdict, required by statute, is disregarded. Thus, we hold that in the circumstances presented here, the setoff must be made against the jury verdict after statutory prejudgment interest accrues on the jury verdict.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) does not provide additional prejudgment interest when the damages award already fully compensates the plaintiff for the withheld property.

Bartch v. Barch · filed 2022-11-14(1)(b)

In any event, that distinction is not dispositive, because even if § 5–12–102(1)(b) did mandate award of prejudgment interest when its criteria are satisfied, its criteria are not satisfied here.

Prejudgment interest on lost profits is unavailable when the claimant cannot show that a general damages verdict reflects past rather than future losses.

Autotech Technologies, LP v. Palmer Drives Controls and Systems, Inc. · filed 2025-01-21

Based on the jury instructions, the jury’s damages award of $195,000 could have been based on lost profits stemming from any of Autotech’s three claims and could have included “any economic losses that Autotech has had or probably will have in the future,” damages for which Autotech is not entitled to prejudgment interest. ... Because Autotech has not carried its burden of proof, the Court finds that Autotech is not entitled to prejudgment interest.

Section 5-12-102 provides prejudgment interest on economic damages when money or property has been wrongfully withheld.

Stuhmer v. Girdner · filed 2024-06-27(1)

Plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest on his economic damages pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102 in the amount of $144,719.62 against each Defendant.

Section 5-12-102(1)(b) allows interest on money that is due and owing even if it was not wrongfully withheld.

Karg v. Mitchek · filed 1998-07-09(1)(b)

Section 5-12-102(1)(b), C.R.S.1997, allows interest on money which is due and owing, regardless of whether it is wrongfully withheld.

Section 5-12-102 requires proof of the withholding party’s gain to award interest based on that gain; without proof, the eight percent statutory rate applies.

James v. Coors Brewing Co. · filed 1999-11-05(1)(a)

Absent proof of the amount of gain realized by a defendant in wrongfully withholding funds, a court has no basis upon which to award prejudgment interest pursuant to C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1)(a) and must turn to the statutory default in C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1)(b).

Section 5-12-102(1)(a) awards 8% annual interest on wrongfully withheld money from the start of withholding until repayment.

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Ass'n · filed 2016-08-01(1)(a)

Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(l)(a), “wrongfully withheld” money earns interest at a rate of 8% per year from the date the wrongful withholding begins to the date of repayment. Consistent with my vacatur of the appraisal award and imposition of sanctions, I find that the award was wrongfully withheld and will impose interest under this provision.

Section 5-12-102 provides interest at eight percent, compounded annually, on money after it becomes due.

Motto Franchising, LLC v. McCabe · filed 2021-04-15

Under Colorado law, which governs the Settlement Agreement, Motto is entitled to interest at the rate of eight percent compounded annually for all moneys after they become due.

Section 5-12-102 does not apply merely because Colorado is the forum; prejudgment interest in a tort action is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties.

AE, INC. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · filed 2007-10-01

Nevertheless, AE contends that ž 5-12-102 is primarily procedural, and we should apply it to this case. We disagree. ... In accordance with the evolution of Colorado choice of law standards, we would apply the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties test to the award of prejudgment interest as well as to the tort cause of action.