Minn. Stat. § 549.09

Section 549.09 allows prejudgment interest on past damages from commencement through verdict, excludes future and punitive damages, and applies the ordinary rate when judgment is against an individual officer rather than a political subdivision.

Handy Jones v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota · filed 2025-08-08(1)(b), (1)(b)(3), (1)(c)(1)(i)

Under Minnesota law, the prevailing party may recover prejudgment interest on any judgment from the date the action commences until the time of the verdict. ... Excluded from prejudgment interest are awards for future damages. ... But the clear text of the statute makes ten percent the appropriate interest rate. ... But the judgment is not against the City; it is against Nathaniel Younce. The Court will apply a ten percent interest rate.

The 1984 amendment to section 549.09 applied to pending causes of action and allowed prejudgment interest on future damages from July 1, 1984; the 1986 amendment barred interest on future damages prospectively.

Herbst v. Northern States Power Co. · filed 1988-12-06(1)

A 1984 amendment to Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1, provided for prejudgment interest, including interest on future damages to accrue beginning July 1, 1984 for all pending causes of action.

Section 549.09 generally allows prejudgment interest from the commencement of the action when no written settlement demand precedes it.

Metalmasters of Minneapolis, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1990-10-23(1)(b)

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1988) allows prejudgment interest in most' cases. ... The statute allows preverdict interest from the commencement of the action when no written settlement demand precedes the commencement. Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b); ... We remand to the trial court for a determination of prejudgment interest to be applied to the total damages recovered.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on a judgment regardless of whether the defendant could ascertain the amount of damages, subject to the governing damages rule.

Simeone v. First Bank Natl. · filed 1996-01-03

In 1984, however, § 549.09 was amended to provide that "[t]he prevailing party shall receive interest on any judgment or award." Minn. Stat. § 549.09. The amended statute allows prejudgment interest "irrespective of a defendant's ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable."

Section 549.09 authorizes prejudgment interest on the $550,000 award from July 1, 1984 until the date of judgment.

Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1985-07-26

Appellant Murphy is also entitled to prejudgment interest on $550,000 from July 1, 1984 to date of judgment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (1984).

Subdivision 1(c) requires prejudgment interest at eight percent for the period after July 1, 1984.

H.J. Kramer Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Scharmer · filed 1986-04-29(1)(c)

However, we hold that interest at the legal rate means that interest is calculated at the rate of six percent for the period between April 26, 1979, and July 1, 1984, under Minn.Stat. § 334.01, subd. 1 (1980), and thereafter at eight percent under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c).

Section 549.09 governs interest on verdicts, sets the applicable rate at five percent here, and requires prejudgment interest to be computed as simple interest rather than compounded annually.

Sphere Drake Insurance PLC v. Trisko · filed 2000-09-13(1)(c)

First, it is clear that Minnesota’s general statute regarding interest on verdicts governs his award. See Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2000). Using this statute, the district court correctly calculated the rate of interest for Trisko’s claim to be five per cent. See Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c) (2000). ... The governing statute provides that prejudgment interest “shall be computed as simple interest per annum.” § 549.09, subd. 1(c). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that Trisko was not entitled to have the interest on his award compounded annually.

Section 549.09 requires prejudgment interest to be calculated by the court rather than the jury, and an expert’s investment-based present value of past lost profits is treated as prejudgment interest.

Minnesota Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp. · filed 2006-12-28

It appears to us that this figure therefore represents "prejudgment interest" under Minnesota law. ... We conclude that the District Court correctly determined that Lieber's analysis improperly included prejudgment interest which could only be calculated by the court. The District Court properly re-calculated the prejudgment interest in accordance with Minnesota law and entered judgment for the reduced sum.

Section 549.09 governs prejudgment interest as a procedural and remedial matter under Minnesota choice-of-law rules, so it applies unless the parties expressly choose another state's law for procedural matters.

Schwan's Sales v. SIG Pack, Inc. · filed 2007-02-09

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the issue of prejudgment interest—a matter of substantive law for Erie purposes—is a procedural matter for conflict-of-laws purposes under Minnesota law. Therefore, we also agree that Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute applies in the absence of an choice-of-law provision that expressly governs procedural matters.

Section 549.09 generally requires courts to award prejudgment interest, and the statutory right is not waived absent a voluntary and intentional waiver.

Capella University, Inc. v. EXECUTIVE RISK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2010-08-20subd. 1

Similar to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, Minnesota Statute § 549.09 employs the mandatory language "shall." ... Considering this court's previous reluctance to find a wavier of 28 U.S.C. § 1961 postjudgment interest and the similarly mandatory nature of Minnesota Statute § 549.09, we find no reason to treat the prejudgment interest issue differently. ... Capella did not waive its right to statutory prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1 permits prejudgment interest on late-payment charges because those charges are not interest, costs, disbursements, attorney fees, or other similar items added by the court.

Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Miranowski · filed 1986-07-15subd. 1

Miranowski also argues that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on the amount of the judgment representing the late payment charges. Miranowski bases his argument on Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1984) which prohibits prejudgment interest awards on “that portion of any verdict or report which is founded upon interest, or costs, disbursements, attorney fees, or other similar items added by the court.” The late payment charges do not fall into any of these categories. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest on the late payment charges.

Subdivision 1 provides prejudgment interest on pecuniary damages from commencement of the action, with the statutory 8% rate applying from July 1, 1984 until judgment.

Solid Gold Realty, Inc. v. Mondry · filed 1987-02-03subd. 1(c)

Solid Gold claims that under the statute it is clearly entitled to prejudgment interest from the date the action was commenced (April 26, 1985) until the date judgment was entered (May 9, 1986). We agree. The plain language of the statute provides for prejudgment interest “from the time of the commencement of the action.” Minn. Stat. § 549.01, subd. 1 (1984). ... Once this determination is made, Solid Gold is entitled to prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 6% (the legal rate of interest under Minn.Stat. § 334.01, subd. 1 (1980)) from the date demand for payment was made until July 1, 1984; from July 1, 1984 until the date of judgment, it is entitled to prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 8% (the rate of interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c) (1984)).

Section 549.09 allows a contract to limit preaward interest, so an underinsured-motorist insurer need not pay interest that would make total damages exceed the policy limit.

Lessard v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. · filed 1994-03-25(1)(b)

In conclusion, because prejudgment interest is an element of compensatory damages, we hold that an insurer providing underin-sured motorist coverage is not liable for that portion of preaward interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b) (Supp.1991) which, when added to total damages, would exceed policy liability limits.

Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c) requires prejudgment interest on a verdict to be computed as simple interest, so interest is not compounded annually.

Case name unavailable · filed 2000-09-13(1)(c)

The governing statute provides that prejudgment interest "shall be computed as simple interest per annum." § 549.09, subd. 1(c). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that Trisko was not entitled to have the interest on his award compounded annually.

Section 549.09 generally allows preverdict interest on all pecuniary damages from the commencement of the action, including damages incurred after filing, except future profits; settlement offers can trigger a different calculation.

Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 2005-03-23(1)(b)

While the statute might not have been artfully drafted, it is not ambiguous in its intention to allow preverdict interest on all pecuniary damages from the time suit was filed, assuming no written settlement offers were made in the course of the litigation. ... We conclude that the Minnesota Supreme Court would read the plain language of § 549.09 and hold that Marvin was entitled to preverdict interest on all pecuniary damages (except future profits) from the inception of the litigation, regardless of when the damages were incurred. Accordingly, we remand to the District Court for the recalculation of preverdict interest consistent with this opinion.

Section 549.09 starts interest at the earliest of commencement of the action, a demand for arbitration, or written notice of claim, and applies the over-$50,000 interest rate to the total amount of a judgment as delineated by the court.

In re the Estate of Rutt · filed 2012-10-22(1)(b), (1)(c)(2)

A probate action is commenced when the probate petition is filed; when that commencement is the earliest of the triggering events listed in Minn.Stat. § 549.09, interest begins to accrue on that date. The district court therefore erred in ordering interest to begin to accrue on the date of the decedent’s death, rather than the date on which the probate petition was filed. The amount of a judgment, for purposes of determining the interest rate applied under Minn.Stat. § 549.09, is determined by the total amount of each judgment as delineated by the district court. Thus, the district court did not err in applying the ten-percent interest rate for judgments over $50,000 to the Voyager Bank judgment.

Section 549.09 generally allows prejudgment interest from the action’s commencement, an arbitration demand, or written notice of claim, whichever comes first, without requiring damages to be readily ascertainable or already incurred, except as to special damages.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC · filed 2014-08-04(1)(b)

Minnesota statutes section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), includes no readily ascertainable requirement. The statute provides that, generally, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages shall be computed as provided in paragraph (c) from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” ... Ivy parties argue that Commonwealth is not entitled to prejudgment interest on damages that it had not yet incurred. We disagree because section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), includes no incurrence requirement, except “as to special damages.”

Subdivision 1(b) makes § 549.09 the default method for calculating preverdict interest unless a contract or other law provides otherwise; when no common-law entitlement applies, the statute governs, including the applicable rate for awards against government entities.

County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC · filed 2014-08-25(1)(b), (1)(c)(1)

Section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), provides guidelines for calculating preverdict interest and applies in all cases except “as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law.” Since the parties argued this case, this court released Hogenson v. Hogenson, which holds that the phrase “as otherwise . . . allowed by law” requires that when a particular claim allows for preverdict interest under common law, interest should be calculated under the common law, rather than section 549.09. ... Because 1010 has provided no common-law authority for awarding preverdict interest on unjust-enrichment claims, 1010 has not shown that the district court’s calculation of interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 was incorrect, including the 4% interest rate for awards against government entities.

Section 549.09 provides 10% annual prejudgment interest on damage awards over $50,000, computed from the earliest qualifying event; the commencement of an action is the relevant starting point when it occurs first.

Kelley v. Boosalis · filed 2018-12-07(1)(b)

Subject to limited exceptions that are inapplicable here, Minn. Stat. § 549.09 provides for a 10% rate of interest, per year, computed from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first, on all damage awards over $50,000. Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1.1. The Summons in this case was issued to Defendant on September 23, 2010, (see Kelley v. Boosalis, Adv. No. 10-4247 (Bankr. D. Minn. Sept. 23, 2010 [ECF 2])), which, the Court finds, constitutes the time of commencement of the action. See Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b).

Section 549.09, subd. 1(b) requires prejudgment interest to be computed from the commencement of the action or from written notice of claim, whichever occurs first, so the court may not choose a later “fair” start date.

Kelley v. Kanios · filed 2019-05-20(1)(b)

Finally, although Defendants argue that it is unfair to charge them prejudgment interest from “the commencement of this action” to the present, rather than from some later date to the present, the Court declines to arbitrarily pick a “fair start date” for the application of prejudgment interest, as that would conflict with the statute’s mandatory language. See Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b) (stating that prejudgment interest “shall be computed . . . from the time of the commencement of the action . . . or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first”) (emphasis added); see also Tate v. Scanlan Int’l, Inc., 403 N.W.2d 666, 674 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (reversing trial court for computing prejudgment interest at a post-commencement date, in an attempt to account for “delay result[ing] from [plaintiff’s] request for a trial date continuance,” and declaring that “the language of the statute is mandatory”).

Section 549.09 allows prejudgment interest on compensatory pecuniary damages, but an insurance appraisal award is not compensatory damages when there is no underlying breach of contract or actionable wrongdoing.

Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Company · filed 2016-01-25(1)(b)

Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute provides for “preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages.” Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). The statute does not define “damages,” but it explicitly excludes damages that are “noncompensatory.” Id., subd. 1(b)(3). ... We therefore conclude that payments made pursuant to an appraisal clause in an insurance policy are not compensatory damages under the prejudgment interest statute.

Section 549.09 provides preaward interest on pecuniary-damages awards, including fire-insurance appraisal awards, unless the statute excludes the award or the contract explicitly precludes that interest.

Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Redwood Falls v. Housing Authority Property Insurance · filed 2017-07-28(1)(b)

In Poehler, the court first explained that section 549.09 “unambiguously provides for preaward interest on all awards of pecuniary damages that are not specifically excluded by the statute, and does not restrict the recovery of pre-award interest to cases or matters involving wrongdoing or a breach of contract.” Id. Next, the court held that, “absent contractual language explicitly precluding preaward interest, an insured may recover preaward interest on an appraisal award for a fire insurance loss, notwithstanding a contractual loss payment provision stating that the loss is payable after the filing of an appraisal award.” Id. Finally, the court considered and rejected an argument that the loss-payment provision in another statute, Minnesota Statute section 65A.01, precluded the insured from recovering pre-award interest on the appraisal award. Id. at *6-8. Thus, the court held that the insured may recover pre-award interest under section 549.09. Id. at *8. As such, HRA likewise is entitled to such interest.

When a judgment combines damages subject to prejudgment interest with future damages exempt from interest and the amounts cannot be differentiated, section 549.09 does not permit prejudgment interest on the award.

Adams v. Toyota Motor Corporation · filed 2017-06-09(1)(a), (1)(b)(2), (1)(c)(2)

Taking into account the plain language of § 549.09, lower state court decisions, and the purpose of the statute, see Leinhard, 431 N.W.2d at 865 (prejudgment interest is an element of damages), we predict that the Minnesota Supreme Court would conclude that prejudgment interest is not available for judgments that encompass multiple types of damages—some of which are subject to interest under § 549.09 and some of which are not—when it is impossible to differentiate between the types of damages included in the judgment. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest and vacate the award of prejudgment interest to Trice.

Section 549.09 does not permit prejudgment interest on a lump-sum judgment containing both interestable and non-interestable damages when the portions cannot be differentiated.

Adams v. Toyota Motor Corporation · filed 2017-08-14(1)(a), (1)(b)(2), and (1)(c)(2)

Taking into account the plain language of § 549.09, lower state court decisions, and the purpose of the statute, see Leinhard, 431 N.W.2d at 865 (prejudgment interest is an element of damages), we predict that the Minnesota Supreme Court would conclude that prejudgment interest is not available for judgments that encompass multiple types of damages—some of which are subject to interest under § 549.09 and some of which are not—when it is impossible to differentiate between the types of damages included in the judgment. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on the damages awarded to Trice by the jury and vacate the award of prejudgment interest on this amount.

Section 549.09, subd. 1(b), provides preaward interest on all awards of pecuniary damages not specifically excluded by the statute, without requiring wrongdoing or breach of contract.

Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. · filed 2017-07-19(1)(b)

Accordingly, we hold that Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b), unambiguously provides for preaward interest on all awards of pecuniary damages that are not specifically excluded by the statute, and does not restrict the recovery of preaward interest to cases or matters involving wrongdoing or a breach of contract.

Section 549.09 bars prejudgment interest on judgments or awards not exceeding the amount specified in § 491A.01, including consumer-credit claims of $4,000 or less.

Klein v. Credico Inc. · filed 2018-07-12subdiv. 1(b)(4)

Klein is correct that Credico could not collect pre-judgment interest under § 549.09. Section 549.09 provides that pre-judgment interest shall not be awarded on “judgments or awards not in excess of the amount specified in section 491A.01.” Minn. Stat. § 549.09 subdiv. 1(b)(4). Section 491A.01, in turn, provides that the specified amounts are $15,000, or $4,000 “if the claim involves a consumer credit transaction.” Minn. Stat. § 491A.01 subdiv. 3a. The amount Credico attempted to collect, $3,902.46, does not exceed either of these amounts; therefore, Credico could not collect pre-judgment interest under § 549.09.

Section 549.09 requires 10% annual prejudgment interest on judgments over $50,000, applies its alternative settlement-offer calculation only when the offer is written, and calculates interest on the total damages award rather than annual infringing sales.

Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. · filed 2018-07-30(c)(2), (b)

Minn. Stat. § 549.09 requires an award of 10% prejudgment interest per year on a judgment of over $50,000. Minn. Stat. § 549.09(c)(2). ... Because the settlement offer was not a written offer, the Court will not apply the statute’s alternative calculation. ... Consistent with the plain language of Minnesota Statute § 549.09, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to calculate prejudgment interest on the total damages award and not based on the number of infringing sales per year.

For preaward-interest accrual, a written notice of claim must sufficiently describe the damages and demand prompt payment; a notice merely initiating an insurance claim does not trigger interest, which instead begins on the demand for appraisal when no earlier payment demand exists.

Herll v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2018-10-02(1)(b)

In order for a written notice of claim to be considered a triggering event for accrual purposes under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, it must sufficiently advise of the nature of the damages and it must demand prompt payment. ... The email referenced by Plaintiffs simply gave notice to Defendant that they believed they had a claim under their homeowner’s policy, and to initiate the claims process. Plaintiffs did not demand payment in the email as it is clear no determination was made that they had a covered loss at that time. Accordingly, as Plaintiffs have not presented a written demand for payment that was submitted prior to demanding an appraisal, the Court finds that preaward interest began to accrue on the date of the demand for an appraisal.

Section 549.09 allows pre-award interest on an appraisal award from the earliest of suit, an arbitration demand, or written notice of claim, and a written notice need not state a specific dollar amount if it lets the insurer determine its potential liability.

Creekview of Hugo Association, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2019-05-29(1)(b)

It is clear that, under Minnesota law, a written notice of claim need not identify a specific amount of damages sought to trigger pre-award interest; rather, the issue is whether the defendant “could have determined the amount of its potential liability from a generally recognized objective standard of measurement.” ... Consequently, Creekview’s June 19, 2017 email to Owners opening the claim constituted a demand for payment that is sufficiently specific under Bunn-O-Matic. ... Accordingly, pre-award interest will be awarded for the time period beginning June 19, 2017.

Section 549.09 allows preverdict prejudgment interest when damages are not readily ascertainable, excludes interest on future damages and court-added attorney’s fees and costs, and permits postverdict interest on an award that includes preverdict interest.

In Re: RFC and RESCAP Liquidating Trust Litigation · filed 2019-03-18(1)(a), (1)(b)(2), (1)(b)(5), (1)(c)(2)

Where damages “are not readily ascertainable,” preverdict interest “should be calculated exclusively under section 549.09.” ... This case involved multiple damages methodologies, and the value of Plaintiff’s claim was determined by litigation and a jury verdict. Accordingly, the Court finds that the damages in this case were not readily ascertainable, and are subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 549.09 for awards of prejudgment interest, absent some exception. ... This was not an award of future damages, nor did the jury’s award include any such relief. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff is therefore entitled to prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 on the jury’s award of $28.7 million. ... The Court finds that the fees and costs here fall under the exception that excludes prejudgment interest on awards of attorney’s fees and costs added by the court. Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)(5). ... The Court thus finds that Plaintiff is entitled to postverdict prejudgment interest on its damages award, inclusive of preverdict prejudgment interest on the jury’s award.

Subdivision 1(a) permits postjudgment interest on the full judgment amount from the judgment date, including when the judgment contains prejudgment interest.

All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson · filed 2017-07-03(1)(a)

Such interest was permissible under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a).

For amounts greater than $50,000, section 549.09 sets prejudgment interest at ten percent per year.

Core Distribution, Inc. v. Doe · filed 2018-11-27(1)(a)

For amounts greater than $50,000, the prejudgment interest is at a rate of 10% per year.

Contribution damages are special damages under section 549.09, so prejudgment interest runs from when the contribution damages were incurred.

Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. · filed 2019-03-11(1)(b)

We conclude that Canadian Pacific is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date its contribution damages "were incurred," which is the date Canadian Pacific settled with each employee.

A party awarded more than $50,000 receives ten percent annual interest from the award until judgment is entered.

Paisley Park Enters., Inc. v. Boxill · filed 2019-04-08(1)(a), (c)(2)

When a party is awarded more than $ 50,000, as Plaintiffs are here, that party is entitled to receive interest from the time of the award until judgment is entered at an annual rate of 10 percent.

Section 549.09 provides ten percent annual prejudgment interest on damage awards over $50,000 from the commencement of the action or written notice of claim.

Kelley v. Home Fed. Sav. Bank (In re Petters Co.) · filed 2019-06-26(1)(b), (1)(c)

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest from Defendant at the statutory rate of 10% per annum from January 11, 2017 until final judgment is entered.

Section 549.09 starts prejudgment interest at the action's commencement or an earlier written notice of claim if the action is filed within two years, applies a 10% rate to judgments over $50,000, and excludes future, punitive, noncompensatory, cost, and similar amounts from the interest base.

Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc. v. Contenta Global Capital Group, LLC · filed 2019-09-26(1)(b), (1)(b)(2), (1)(b)(3), (1)(b)(5), and (1)(c)(2)

Minnesota requires that prejudgment interest be calculated from either “the time of commencement of the action . . . or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first” although in order to claim interest from the date of a written notice of claim, “ [t]he action must be commenced within two years of a written notice of claim . . . .” ... Therefore, the date IPL commenced this action must be used to calculate prejudgment interest. See Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). ... Consequently, IPL is entitled to prejudgment interest at a rate of 10% per year from March 5, 2019 through the date of judgment below on $106,000 in compensatory damages.

Section 549.09 allows prejudgment interest to accrue from a written notice of a claim when the action begins within two years, and the notice need only provide enough information for the recipient to assess potential liability.

Selective Insurance Co. of SC v. Sela · filed 2021-08-30(1)(b)–(c)

Under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, Sela is entitled to prejudgment interest on an award for money. That interest begins to accrue with the first of three possible triggering events: (1) the commencement of an action; (2) an arbitration demand; or (3) a written notice of a claim. Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subdiv. 1(b)–(c). If written notice is the triggering event, an action must commence within two years. Id. ... Because the Minnesota Court of Appeals offers “the best evidence of what state law is” on this issue, Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524, 534 (8th Cir. 2006), we will follow Blehr here. Consistent with Blehr, the district court found that Selective had enough information in the property loss notice “to assess its potential liability.” D. Ct. Dkt. 282 at 60. ... The district court did not err by awarding prejudgment interest to Sela.

Section 549.09 provides that, for pecuniary damages exceeding $50,000, 10% preaward interest accrues from the earliest of the action, an arbitration demand, or written claim notice, and a written notice qualifies when it gives the insurer enough information to assess potential liability.

Smith v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2022-05-16(1)(b), (c)(2)

Minnesota law dictates that for pecuniary damages awards greater than $50,000, ten percent interest accrues each year “from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Minn. Stat. § 549.09 subds. 1(b), (c)(2). ... The Court finds that Smith’s August 28, 2018, email sufficiently notified State Farm of his claim. ... Smith equipped State Farm with sufficient information to assess its potential liability. Therefore, preaward interest began to accrue on August 28, 2018.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), requires pre-award interest on pecuniary damages, excluding amounts already paid before appraisal, and accrual begins upon written notice of the claim rather than completion of repairs.

Woodland Creek Manor Homes Association, Inc. v. AmGUARD Insurance Company · filed 2022-02-25(1)(b)

§ 549.09, subd. 1(b)’s explicit textual directive that interest be “on pecuniary damages,” considered in light of that term’s legal meaning and the rule that pecuniary damages do not include an insurer’s pre-appraisal payments, leads to the conclusion that pre-award interest is not awarded on such payments. ... The law is clear that the trigger starting the pre-award-interest clock here was Woodland Creek giving “written notice of claim,” Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b), and that occurred on August 6, 2019, Lindell Decl. Ex. 3 [ECF No. 50 at 28]. The trigger is not, as AmGUARD contends, Woodland Creek completing repairs.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest despite damages depending on jury discretion and allows interest to accrue from a written demand that sufficiently advises the defendant of the damages, even if the damages were not yet calculable.

Reach Companies, LLC v. Newsert LLC · filed 2022-11-10(1)(b), (1)(c)(2)

The ascertainability rule was overturned with the passage of Minn. Stat. § 549.09. ... Reach’s assertion that prejudgment interest is unavailable when the claim amount is dependent upon the discretion of the jury is not correct. ... The May 4, 2020 letter is a written demand under § 549.09, and thus prejudgment interest is awardable from that date.

Section 549.09's prejudgment-interest rate does not govern interest accruing after a federal district court has entered a money judgment, because federal postjudgment-interest law controls that period.

ResCap Liquidating Trust v. Primary Residential Mortgage · filed 2023-02-021(a), (c)(1)(ii)(2)

The district court held that, as a matter of Minnesota law governed by Section 549.09, a final judgment was not “finally entered” until its Judgment in a Civil Case resolving attorney’s fees, costs, and interest was entered April 28, 2021, and therefore Minnesota’s ten percent prejudgment rate applied in the interim period. But Section 1961(a) does not say “final judgment,” it says “money judgment.” The district court on August 17, 2020 entered a “money judgment.” Thus, as in Weitz, the plain language of the federal statute applies to the interim period and is controlling. Accord Youngs v. Am. Nutrition, Inc., 537 F.3d 1135, 1146 (10th Cir. 2008). The district court erred in applying Minnesota law to calculate interest after August 17, 2020, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

When the parties' contract sets a rate for prejudgment interest, that agreed rate controls under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b).

CHS, Inc. v. Valley View Feeders, Inc. · filed 2023-08-09(1)(b)

Where the parties’ contract sets a rate for prejudgment interest, such agreement controls. Minn. Stat. § 549.09(1)(b). Thus, CHS is entitled to interest at the contractual rate of 1.5% per month on all past-due amounts until the date of the judgment entered in this case.

Section 549.09 supplies a 10% prejudgment-interest rate when patent damages were not readily ascertainable until the jury determined them.

Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited · filed 2024-03-08

While Polygroup cites Minn. Stat. § 334.01 and argues damages were ascertainable, the record indicates significant disputes existed between the parties’ damages experts regarding applicable theories, comparable licenses, and reasonable royalty rates. This supports that damages were not readily ascertainable until determined by the jury verdict. Therefore, Minn. Stat. § 549.09 and its 10% rate governs.

For a judgment exceeding $50,000, subdivision 1(c)(2) sets prejudgment interest at 10% per year until paid.

Selective Insurance Company of America v. Heritage Construction Companies, LLC · filed 2024-04-30(1)(c)(2)

Minn. Stat. § 549.09 subd. 1(c)(2) states that for a judgment exceeding $50,000 “the interest rate shall be [10%] per year until paid.” ... As such, the Court will award pre-judgment interest at a rate of 10% on the fraud damages and 1% to the remaining breach of contract damages.

Section 549.09 requires preverdict interest to be calculated before collateral-source reductions and permits accrual from a written notice of claim only when the action is commenced within two years of that notice.

Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... · filed 2024-08-19(1)(b)

Because preverdict interest exists to fully compensate plaintiffs, and section 549.09 does not expressly exclude preverdict interest before any offsets from collateral-source payments, we hold that preverdict interest must be calculated before reducing the jury verdict by collateral sources. ... Accordingly, we hold that, for preverdict interest to begin accruing from the time of a notice of claim, the action must have commenced within two years of that notice.

Section 549.09 starts prejudgment interest on the date of the action or written notice of claim, whichever is earlier; for damages exceeding $50,000, the applicable rate is 10 percent.

Norick, Inc. v. Hays Companies · filed 2024-11-13(1)(b), (1)(c)(2)

Prejudgment interest begins to run from either “the time of commencement of the action . . . or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” ... The Court finds that HCI has the better of this argument. ... By contrast, the April 13, 2022 letter contains an explicit demand and provides notice to HCI that Norick would be seeking relief. ... Accordingly, when the time comes to enter a money judgment in this case, prejudgment interest shall be calculated with a start date of April 13, 2022.

Section 549.09 requires only a written notice of claim sufficient under the circumstances to alert the insurer to the insured’s loss and trigger pre-award interest, and a partial payment reduces the insurer’s pre-award interest obligation only when the payment is made.

Turnberry Townhome Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2025-03-10(1)(b), (1)(c)(2)

All told, the Court predicts that the Minnesota Supreme Court would find Gavnat’s notice sufficient as a matter of law. Section 549.09’s plain text requires only “a written notice of claim.” A higher bar “would invite arbitrary line-drawing by courts,” would “encourage gamesmanship by insurers,” and “would be inconsistent with the twin purposes of pre-award interest: compensating the plaintiff for the loss of use of the money and promoting settlement.” ... The Court finds the notice sufficient to trigger interest and accordingly grants Turnberry partial summary judgment on that basis. ... Accordingly, the Court predicts that the Minnesota Supreme Court would hold that a “partial payment can reduce [an insurer’s] pre-award interest obligation” only “once it [is] made.” ... The parties should calculate interest on that basis.

Section 549.09 starts pre-award interest at the earliest qualifying event, and a sufficient claimant notice—not an insurer-generated report—can trigger accrual.

Maplebrook Estates Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company · filed 2024-02-29subd. 1(b), subd. 2, and subd. 1(c)(2)

A notice of claim for an insurance claim must be sent from the claimant to the insurer—a report generated entirely by the insurer does not count.

Subdivision 1(b) requires commencement within two years of a written notice of claim for interest to accrue from the notice date, even after a settlement offer, and calculates preverdict interest on the judgment after collateral-source deductions rather than on the gross jury verdict.

Lee Michael Scheurer, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann .. · filed 2025-08-13(1)(b)

In sum, we hold that Minnesota Statutes section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), requires that an “action must be commenced within two years of a written notice of claim for interest to begin to accrue from the time of the notice of claim,” regardless of whether a party serves a written offer of settlement. Additionally, we hold that preverdict interest accrues on the judgment, rather than the jury verdict.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on attorney-fee awards when the fees are the subject matter of the action rather than fees added by the court or arbitrator, with interest running from the earlier of commencement or written notice and, for awards over $50,000, accruing at 10% annually.

Case name unavailable · filed 2026-03-20(1)(b)(5), (1)(b), (1)(c)(2)

Because Shoot-a-Way has not shown that Arbitrator Agris’s prejudgment interest award is in manifest disregard of the law, the Court confirms that portion of the award. As for the amount of interest Airborne is owed, prejudgment interest is calculated under Minn. Stat. § 549.09. Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc. v. Contenta Glob. Cap. Grp., LLC, No. 19-cv-532 (SRN/DTS), 2019 WL 4687115, at *26 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2019). As Arbitrator Agris correctly determined, that statute requires prejudgment interest “be calculated from either ‘the time of commencement of the action . . . or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.’” Id. ... By statute, the Court must set a rate of 10% per year. See id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c)(2)) (“Minnesota mandates a 10% flat prejudgment interest rate—regardless of the type of claim—where the damages are over $50,000.”).

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on a fee award from the earlier of the action's commencement or written notice of the claim, does not bar interest when the fees are the subject matter of the arbitration rather than fees added by the arbitrator, and requires a 10% annual rate for damages over $50,000.

Case name unavailable · filed 2026-03-23(1)(b), (1)(b)(5), (1)(c)(2)

Because Shoot-a-Way has not shown that Arbitrator Agris’s prejudgment interest award is in manifest disregard of the law, the Court confirms that portion of the award. As for the amount of interest Airborne is owed, prejudgment interest is calculated under Minn. Stat. § 549.09. Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc. v. Contenta Glob. Cap. Grp., LLC, No. 19-cv-532 (SRN/DTS), 2019 WL 4687115, at *26 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2019). As Arbitrator Agris correctly determined, that statute requires prejudgment interest “be calculated from either ‘the time of commencement of the action . . . or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.’” Id. (quoting Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)). Neither party disputes that Airborne provided Shoot-a-Way with the written notice of its claim to attorneys’ fees from the first arbitration on December 19, 2022. Accordingly, Airborne is entitled to prejudgment interest from that day through the date of this judgment. Id. By statute, the Court must set a rate of 10% per year. See id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c)(2)) (“Minnesota mandates a 10% flat prejudgment interest rate—regardless of the type of claim—where the damages are over $50,000.”). The applicable formula is: ($2,649,737.25 * 0.1) ÷ 365 = $725.95 in daily interest. See id. at *27. That $725.95 in daily interest, multiplied by the 1,187 days that have passed since December 19, 2022, results in $861,702.65 in total interest. As a result, the Court awards Airborne $861,702.65 in prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1(c), allows prejudgment interest from July 1, 1984, through the date of the verdict, including in an action pending when the 1984 amendment took effect.

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Medical Inc. · filed 1986-02-11(1)(c)

A recent amendment to Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1984), allows prejudgment interest in most cases. ... Medical contends the University is not entitled to prejudgment interest because this cause of action was pending before the effective date of the statute. This argument is meritless. ... As to the period from July 1, 1984, to the date the verdict was returned, the University is entitled to interest under § 549.09, subd. 1(c). ... The trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest from October 1, 1984, through November 30, 1984, is reversed.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on pecuniary damages even when a separate statute imposes a 15% no-fault overdue-benefits penalty, because that penalty is not interest otherwise allowed by law.

Burniece v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · filed 1986-06-19(1)(b)

Because of the different purposes of the acts, we hold that the fifteen percent interest from the No-Fault Act is not interest which is otherwise allowed by law, and that an award of prejudgment interest was proper.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1 allows prejudgment interest from commencement of the action in most cases, and a settlement offer does not defeat interest when it is not closer to the judgment than the opposing counteroffer.

Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. · filed 1986-08-13subd. 1

The legislature, effective that date, amended Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 to allow for prejudgment interest to the commencement of the action in most cases. ... Hector Plumbing contends that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest because it made a pre-trial offer of settlement which was closer to the jury’s verdict than the Bulaus’ counter-offer. ... Since the jury found damages of $34,100, and judgment was entered against Hector in this amount, its offer was not closer to the judgment, and prejudgment interest was properly awarded.

Section 549.09 makes prejudgment interest mandatory and does not permit an equitable reduction based on a party’s trial continuance; the statute encourages settlement.

Tate v. Scanlan International, Inc. · filed 1987-04-07(1)(b)

Respondent argues that the trial court erred in reducing the prejudgment interest award because the statutory award of interest is mandatory and is therefore not subject to an equitable reduction. Indeed, the language of the statute is mandatory and there is no basis in the case law developed around the statute to support such a reduction. The equity of such a reduction is minimized because appellant was also granted a continuance in this matter. In addition, allowing the full amount of prejudgment interest does not thwart the purpose of the statute, which is to encourage parties to settle.

Section 549.09 generally permits compensatory prejudgment interest, subject to contractual terms and the exceptions in subdivision 1(b), and the interest period runs here from commencement of the action to the jury verdict.

Fette v. Peterson · filed 1987-06-02(1)

Prejudgment interest, by contrast, is limited only by contract or by the exceptions listed in section 549.09, subd. 1(b) and is compensatory in nature, not punitive. ... The trial court here properly calculated prejudgment interest under section 549.09, subd. 1, from the date the action was commenced (July 22, 1985) to the date the jury verdict was rendered (July 16, 1986).

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on pecuniary damages from commencement of the action and, for a pending cause of action, from July 1, 1984.

Higgins v. J.C. Penney Casualty Insurance Co. · filed 1987-10-06

Prejudgment interest is awardable on pecuniary damages “from the time of commencement of the action.” Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1986). When section 549.09 was enacted, the Minnesota legislature determined that interest would begin to accrue as of July 1, 1984, on any pending cause of action. ... We therefore conclude that Dennis is entitled to prejudgment interest since July 1, 1984, under section 549.09.

Section 549.09 allows a prevailing party to recover prejudgment interest, including when the amount of the award has been fixed by arbitration.

Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1989-04-11

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1986) allows a prevailing party to recover prejudgment interest. The interest sought here is prejudgment interest. Kemper’s reliance on Lucas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 403 N.W.2d 646 (Minn.1987), where prearbitration award interest was not recoverable, is misplaced. The trial court was correct in awarding prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09 requires prejudgment interest from the verdict to the judgment, while an insurance contract may limit pre-verdict interest.

Hennings v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1989-04-25(1)(a), (1)(b)

Subdivision 1(a) of Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1988) was in effect at the time the jury made its findings on reasonableness of the settlement. Under this provision, Hen-nings was entitled as a statutory matter to prejudgment interest from the return of the verdict to the entry of the judgment. Subdivision 1(b) of § 549.09 deals with pre-verdict interest and provides that such interest can be limited by the terms of an insurance contract. While State Farm cannot limit prejudgment interest after the verdict, it can and did preclude such interest from the commencement of the suit to the verdict. We believe the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest from the time of the jury verdict to the entry of the judgment was correct and would affirm but for the necessity of vacating the judgment.

Section 549.09 supplies the applicable judgment-interest rate and makes interest accrue from the action’s commencement date.

Miller v. Have-A-Portion, Inc. (In Re Total Transportation, Inc.) · filed 1989-04-25(b), (c)

The rate of prejudgment interest, as governed by state law, Middleton v. Farmers State Bank of Fosston, 45 B.R. 744, 749 (Bkrtcy.D.Minn.1985), is 8% for judgments entered in 1989. Minn.Stat. § 549.09(c). Interest shall accrue from September 8, 1987, the date Total commenced this adversary proceeding. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09(b).

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on a judgment for attorney fees when the fees are the subject matter of the lawsuit, but it does not permit such interest on an attorneys’ lien because a lien is not a money judgment.

Gaughan v. Gaughan · filed 1990-01-16(a), (b)(2), and (b)(6)

We find that Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)(2) does not preclude prejudgment interest for an award of attorney fees. The fact that this action arose out of an agreement to represent Gaughan in a dissolution proceeding does not make it a dissolution action. Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)(2) does not apply. ... The Seaway case demonstrates that Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)(6) does not preclude adding prejudgment interest to a judgment for attorney fees when the fees are the subject matter of the lawsuit. Thus, the trial court erred in relying on that part of the statute in denying prejudgment interest. ... Prejudgment interest is authorized only for money judgments. Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a). ... Accordingly, we hold prejudgment interest under Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b) cannot be added to an attorneys’ lien.

Section 549.09 does not authorize prejudgment interest when a personal-injury settlement offer and resulting judgment are identical and the damages are not sufficiently ascertainable, including possible future damages.

Stinson v. Clark Equipment Co. · filed 1991-07-23(1)(b)

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 contemplates situations where a settlement offer is made and later, after the case has been tried, a judgment is entered that is more or less than the offer. In that situation two figures are needed, the settlement offer and the judgment. Here, the offer and the judgment are the same. ... The case at hand, however, is distinguishable. ... Here, the parties agreed to damages for personal injury in the amount of $240,000 without differentiating between types of damages. We do not know if there are pecuniary damages, nor do we know the amount of future damages on which the statute explicitly disallows prejudgment interest. ... Because the types of damages are unascertainable, the amount of prejudgment interest is indeterminable. We find Minn.Stat. § 549.09 inapplicable here.

Section 549.09 starts prejudgment interest at the earliest of action commencement, an arbitration demand, or written notice of claim, computes it as simple interest, and does not require the notice to cite the statute.

Fire Insurance Exchange v. Adamson Motors · filed 1994-04-12(b), (c)

Prejudgment interest is computed from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first. ... Interest is “computed as simple interest per annum.” ... Appellant adds requirements to section 549.09 that are not there. The statute refers to “written notice of a claim,” not “a party’s written notice” or “each parties’written notice.” Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). The statute contains no requirement that section 549.09 be mentioned specifically.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest on an insurer’s overpayment, running from the date the insurer contributed funds through entry of judgment.

Diocese of Winona v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1995-01-16

Each insurer contributed more to the pool than the amount of its ultimate liability; each is therefore entitled to recovery of the additional amounts plus prejudgment interest pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.09. ... As Aetna made its payment to the pool on December 16, 1991, it is owed prejudgment interest under Minn.Stat. § 549.09 from that date through the date judgment is entered. Interstate is similarly owed interest from January 6,1992, the day it made its contribution through the date judgment is entered, and Underwriters are owed prejudgment interest from January 29,1992.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest when the damages are liquidated or ascertainable by an objective standard of measurement, including a statutory damages formula.

International Financial Services, Inc. v. Franz · filed 1994-06-29

A trial court’s authority to award prejudgment interest is governed by statute. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1986). ... When a defendant can determine potential liability from a generally recognized objective standard of measurement, such as a readily obtainable market value, a court may properly award prejudgment interest. ... The jury awarded respondent $216,000 in damages— the difference in the system’s value as warranted and as delivered. This award was based on a statutory formula that encompasses an objective standard of measurement. See Minn.Stat. § 336.2-714(2). Accordingly, we hold the trial court properly awarded interest on the $216,000.

Section 549.09 requires prejudgment interest on pecuniary damages regardless of ascertainability, excludes interest-based damages from the principal, and bars interest on lost profits when that would duplicate the statutory inflation compensation.

Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. · filed 2004-06-15(1)(b) and (1)(b)(5)

To properly execute the meaning and purpose of the statute, we hold that prejudgment interest is available notwithstanding aseertainability of the judgment. ... The difference between these two forms of interest is implicitly recognized by Minn.Stat. § 549.09. When calculating prejudgment interest, any part of the pecuniary damages based on interest is excluded from the principal amount. Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)(5). This deduction prevents interest from being awarded twice — once for the interest that accrues from the time of a loan, until the verdict and again for the interest that accrues from the time of a claim until the verdict. ... But because Minn.Stat. § 549.09 compensates a plaintiff for inflation from the time of the claim, it is not permissible for a plaintiff to seek interest on “lost profits” as an element of pecuniary damages. Otherwise, the plaintiff would collect interest once from the time of the loss and again from the time of the claim. Such a result is exactly what the statute is designed to avoid.

For Minnesota choice-of-law purposes, prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 is procedural, so Minnesota's statute applies unless the parties expressly choose another state's law to govern procedural matters.

Schwan's Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. Sig Pack, Inc., Doboy Division · filed 2007-02-09

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the issue of prejudgment interest — a matter of substantive law for Erie purposes — is a procedural matter for eonflict-of-laws purposes under Minnesota law. Therefore, we also agree that Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute applies in the absence of an choice-of-law provision that expressly governs procedural matters.

Section 549.09(b) provides prejudgment interest on qualifying pecuniary damages from the earliest of the action's commencement, a demand for arbitration, or written notice of claim, unless a contract provides otherwise.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. · filed 2010-05-25(b)

The court finds the reasoning of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Nelson and Richard Knutson persuasive to predicting how the Minnesota Supreme Court would address the issue of whether § 334.01 applies to interest in this breach of contract action. The instant case presents a question of interest on a judgment, and the court predicts that the Minnesota Supreme Court would apply § 549.09. ... Under § 549.09, “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by contract,” Best Buy is entitled to interest from the date it filed a claim against each defendant. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09(b).

Section 549.09 allows prejudgment interest where existing law did not already allow it, without displacing interest available under existing law.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Trails S 580s Aircraft Co. Air Resorts, Also Known as Air Resorts Airline and Theodore L. Vallas · filed 1993-08-27

The Minnesota Court of Appeals made it clear in ... that § 549.09 was not intended to disturb the existing law of prejudgment interest. It was solely to allow interest in situations where interest was not already allowed by law.

Section 549.09 provides for prejudgment interest on recoverable legal malpractice damages.

Bremer Business Finance Corp. v. Whitney (In Re SRC Holding Corp.) · filed 2007-04-06

The bankruptcy court also recommends that the Court award prejudgment interest on said sum as calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 549.09, commencing on February 23, 2005, and concluding on the date of entry of judgment. ... After de novo review of the record and the parties’ submissions, the Court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s recommendation as to the $409,000 in costs that Bremer incurred in the Bremer Litigation and as to the award of prejudgment interest.

A valid settlement offer under section 549.09 must be written, clear and definite, and encompass both an employee’s and an employer’s interests in a third-party tort action.

Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · filed 1988-05-06(1)(b)

Valid offers and counteroffers under section 549.09 must be in writing and must offer, in sufficiently clear and definite terms, to dispose completely the claims between the negotiating parties.

For a pending case governed by the pre-1986 version of section 549.09, an offer that excludes the employer’s subrogation interest is invalid and preverdict interest may include future damages.

Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · filed 1990-01-11(1)(b)(3)

Houdaille’s April 15,1985 letter containing the $3,000 settlement does not “treat the employee and the employer as one party,” nor does it “encompass the interests of both the employee and the employer.” ... This is not a valid settlement offer and the trial court did not err in figuring preverdict interest based on the full amount of the jury award rather than on Houdaille’s purported settlement offer of $3,000. ... Because his case was pending pri- or to the August 1, 1986 effective date of the current statute, Johnson is entitled to preverdict interest on future as well as past damages.

Section 549.09 requires a settlement offer to be served in writing and to state clear and definite terms that completely dispose of the claims to qualify for its offer-counteroffer exception to prejudgment interest.

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Minnesota · filed 2004-01-21(1)(b)

In order for an offer to be valid under § 549.09, it “must be in writing and must offer, in sufficiently clear and definite terms, to dispose completely the claims between the negotiating parties.” ... The offer must be served on the other party. ... The statute’s aim of promoting settlement “is best accomplished by offers which are straightforward and would in an effective and practical manner settle matters between the negotiating parties.” ... On this basis, we conclude that the September 5, 2001 letter was not a “written offer of settlement” as contemplated by § 549.09, and the district court did not err in its award of prejudgment interest.

A Rule 68 offer that expires after ten days is not a valid section 549.09 settlement offer because the statute allows thirty days to accept or counter.

A & L POTATO CO. v. Aggregate Industries · filed 2009-01-06(1)(b)

Because a settlement offer made solely under rule 68 is deemed withdrawn if not accepted within ten days of the offer, it is not a valid settlement offer under section 549.09, subd. 1(b), which allows 80 days for the other party to accept an offer or make a counterclaim before the prejudgment-limiting provisions of the statute are triggered.

Section 549.09, subd. 1(b) requires a written settlement offer to be served on each adverse party in a multi-party case; service on only one adverse party or attorney is insufficient.

Grab v. JanSport, Inc. · filed 1991-03-12(1)(b)

Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b) (1984) expressly requires that all offers be in writing and anticipates that they be served on the “other party.” ... Appellant’s demand for settlement was never served on K-2 or its attorney. Therefore, as the trial court concluded, it was not a lawful offer under the prejudgment interest statute’s offer-counteroffer provision.

Section 549.09, subd. 1(b) does not stop prejudgment-interest accrual when a settlement proposal lacks sufficiently definite cleanup terms and includes a condition that could not have been granted as relief in the case.

Kennedy Building Associates v. Viacom, Inc. · filed 2004-07-15(1)(b)

Viacom argues that this proposal stopped the accrual of prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). The magistrate judge concluded that Viacom's offer to settle was "not sufficiently precise" to afford it the benefit of the offer-counter offer mechanism in the Minnesota statute. This apparently referred to the lack of substantive standards for the clean-up and indeed the contingency of the clean-up offer on Viacom being ordered to do anything at all by some government agency at some unspecified time. Additionally, the offer added a condition that Kennedy would not exercise its rights to petition the government agency in any way concerning government action affecting its own property. Viacom demanded that Kennedy agree to a condition that certainly has not been granted by the judgment in this case, nor could such a condition have been included as relief for any cause of action litigated herein. Viacom's proposal did not function as an offer of settlement within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Ann. § 549.09 stopping the accrual of interest. Cf. Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826, 841 (Minn. 1988) (offer that did not encompass all claims in suit did not stop interest).

Section 549.09, subd. 1(b), requires a qualifying settlement offer to remain open for 30 days before it can affect prejudgment-interest accrual.

In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC · filed 2015-12-07(1)(b)

Although not a rule 68 offer, it was clearly a settlement offer that provided only nine days for a response. Therefore, it did not conform to the statutory requirements for prejudgment interest accrual under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, which unambiguously provides for a 30-day response time.

Section 549.09 requires subsequent settlement offers and counteroffers to be written to supersede earlier written offers, and prejudgment interest is calculated under the statute’s settlement-offer rules.

Steady State Imaging, LLC v. General Electric Company · filed 2023-06-271(b)

However, Steady State’s reading ignores the fact that the phrase “earlier offers and counteroffers” is not modified by the word “written.” Contrary to Steady State’s strained reading that it would “not make sense to modify ‘earlier offers and counteroffers’ with the word ‘written,’ because some earlier offers and counteroffers may well not be written,” the initial use of “written” instead suggests that all subsequent references to offers are of the same kind, i.e., the written kind. In other words, because the statute makes initial use of written offers and counteroffers, all subsequent references to them would also concern those that are written to suffice. Thus, GE’s $10 million verbal offer is not valid under the statute to supersede the earlier $250,000 written offer.

Section 549.09 requires a written settlement offer that limits prejudgment interest to clearly and completely dispose of the claims between the negotiating parties.

Erickson Ex Rel. Bunker v. American Honda Motor Co. · filed 1990-05-08subd. 1(b)

Because Burnsville did not disclose whether appellants were released from prospective liability for Burnsville’s claims against Honda, its offer did not definitely and completely dispose of the claims between the parties.

A complete written settlement offer triggers the statute's offer-counteroffer rules; later offers supersede earlier legal effects, but an accepted completed offer cannot create a prejudgment-interest advantage.

Stewart v. Anderson · filed 1991-12-17(1)(b)

Under Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute, Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b), prejudgment interest is normally calculated from the date the action is commenced. Complexity arises in determining when the prejudgment interest period ends. In this regard, if a plaintiff makes an offer which is closer to the resulting judgment than a defendant’s offer, the statute confers a benefit to the plaintiff by calculating prejudgment interest on the amount of the judgment and allowing interest to be calculated through the time the judgment is entered. ... Similarly, the statute penalizes a plaintiff should the defendant’s offer prove closest to the ultimate judgment. In the latter situation, prejudgment interest is calculated only on the amount of the defendant’s offer and the prejudgment interest period ends as of the date of the defendant’s offer. ... The statute permits counteroffers within 60 days of an offer of settlement, thereby allowing parties to escape the risk an outstanding offer poses to them. While the statute suggests attributes significant only to a counteroffer made within 60 days of the settlement offer, the statute provides that subsequent offers supersede the legal effects of earlier offers. ... We conclude that neither party can obtain a prejudgment interest advantage premised on a completed offer which is accepted by the other party.

Subdivision 2 allows interest to continue accruing on an unpaid judgment without a separate judgment for that interest.

Marriage of Merickel v. Merickel · filed 1986-12-16(2)

Because Theodore Merickel did not pay interest when he paid the $35,000 over two years later, Diana Merickel continues to have a judgment against him, and the statute provides for interest.

Section 549.09, subd. 1(a) requires interest on a money judgment or award to run from the date of the verdict, award, or report until judgment is entered; for this attorney-fee award, interest began when the fee-award order was issued.

In re the Matter of: C. O. v. John and Jackie Doe · filed 2014-11-17(1)(a)

Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a) (2012), states, “when a judgment or award is for the recovery of money . . . interest from the time of the verdict, award, or report until judgment is finally entered shall be computed by the court administrator . . . and added to the judgment or award.” ... The district court’s order awarding appellant attorney fees was issued on December 28, 2009. Interest should commence from the date that order was issued.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1(b)(1), bars prejudgment interest on a workers’ compensation subrogation action even when the underlying claim was against a third-party tortfeasor.

S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski · filed 1996-10-01(1)(b)(1)

Although the underlying action in this case is appellants’ suit against a third-party tortfeasor, respondents’ action to collect its subrogation interest was brought pursuant to the workers’ compensation statute. ... Thus, Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b)(1), applies to prohibit an award of prejudgment interest in this case. We reverse the trial court’s decision awarding prejudgment interest.

When only one party makes a settlement offer, the comparison rule for offers from both parties does not apply, so prejudgment interest runs from commencement of the action; interest on a single sum of pecuniary damages is not phased in over time.

Kulkay v. Allied Central Stores, Inc. · filed 1986-12-16(1)(b)

The statute provides that, when both parties offer to settle, the prevailing party may receive prejudgment interest only if its offer was closer to the judgment than the offer of the opposing party. That is not the situation here. Only respondent offered to settle, and as a result, the portion of the statute relating to situations where both parties make such offers does not apply. Consequently, the statute provides that prejudgment interest shall be computed from the time of the commencement of the action. The trial court did not err in awarding such interest to respondent. ... The trial court also properly calculated interest based upon the total amount of damages found by the jury. Appellant argues that interest should be calculated as if the amount of damages had been earned over a year-long period of time as a salary rather than as a single sum of money available to respondent when the judgment was entered. We can discern no support for appellant’s argument. The statute provides for prejudgment interest on pecuniary damages. It makes no provision for such a “phasing-in” of the damage award as appellant requests when the jury found a single sum of damages. We cannot interpret the statute to award interest on increasing portions of the damage award until the total amount would have been earned had it been respondent’s salary.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1(b), does not treat a court-imposed judgment as a settlement offer that limits or eliminates prejudgment interest.

Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. · filed 1993-04-06(1)(b)

A court-imposed judgment does not qualify as an “offer” within the meaning of the prejudgment interest statute.

Subdivision 2 governs postjudgment interest after judgment is entered, rather than the no-fault statute's interest rate.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sankey · filed 2000-02-01subd. 2

The district court’s denial of Liberty Mutual’s motion to vacate and its assessment of interest under Minn.Stat. § 65B.54 from the date of the arbitration award are affirmed; postjudgment interest is limited to that provided under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 2.

Section 549.09 requires statutory interest on a qualifying marital-property judgment only after an installment becomes unpaid or overdue, so a court may deny interest on payments not yet due.

In re the Marriage of: Peter Farrell v. Olson · filed 2014-10-20subd. 1(c)(2), subd. 2

Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c)(2), provides that “[f]or a judgment or award over $50,000, . . . the interest rate shall be ten percent per year until paid.” ... The holdings of these cases are consistent with Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 2 (2012), which provides that “interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the judgment from the time that it is entered or made until paid.” ... We conclude that the district court did not err by denying husband’s motion for interest on payments not yet due and did not abuse its discretion by making post-judgment interest dependent on wife’s failure to make timely payments, as ordered in the decree.

Section 549.09 requires mandatory post-award interest at ten percent for an award over $50,000, calculated on the entire final award, including pre-award interest.

Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao · filed 2016-01-25(1)(a), (1)(c)(2)

Subdivision 1(c)(2) provides: “For a judgment or award over $50,000 . . . the interest rate shall be ten percent per year until paid.” Under the plain language of the statute, post-award interest is mandatory (“shall”) and must be calculated at a rate of ten percent. ... In sum, we conclude that the arbitrator did not decide the issue of post-award interest and that, under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, Seagate is entitled to interest on the entire amount of the arbitrator’s award, $630,431,501, which is the sum of the compensatory-damages award plus pre-award interest.

Subdivision 2 requires postjudgment interest on an unpaid judgment or award at the statutory annual rate and does not allow a contrary contractual rate.

C.J. Duffey Paper Co. v. Reger · filed 1999-02-02(2)

With respect to postjudgment interest, however, the statute makes no exception for interest provided by contract; rather, the statute merely provides that “interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the judgment or award from the time that it is entered or made until it is paid, at the annual rate provided in subdivision 1,” which in this case is five percent. ... The trial court therefore did not err in calculating postjudgment interest at the rate of five percent.

Section 549.09, subdivision 2 requires postjudgment interest on an unpaid judgment at the statutory rate from the time the judgment is entered until it is paid.

Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC · filed 2004-12-07subd. 2

The postjudgment interest statute requires that interest accrue “from the time that [the judgment] is entered,” Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 2, and the foreclosure statutes consistently describe the foreclosure decree as a judgment entered, Minn.Stat. § 581.03. Therefore, in a foreclosure by action, postjudgment interest accrues at the statutory rate from the foreclosure decree, not the foreclosure sale.

Section 549.09 sets 10% annual postjudgment interest for judgments exceeding $50,000, including foreign judgments docketed in Minnesota even when the foreign judgment specified a different rate.

AVR Communications, Ltd., creditors v. American Hearing Systems, Inc., d/b/a Interton, Inc., debtor · filed 2015-08-10(1)(c)(2)

And the interest rate in this case will be 10% annually because the award exceeds $50,000. ... These statutes afford no exception for state docketed judgments that arose from foreign judgments that were already assigned an interest rate by the foreign jurisdiction.

In a condemnation proceeding, the rate specified by section 549.09 is not binding; the court must determine whether it provides just compensation.

State ex rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. · filed 1992-02-04(1)(c)

The rate of interest to be applied in a condemnation proceeding is ultimately a matter for judicial determination.

The actual entry date of a judgment controls the applicable section 549.09 interest rate, and a nunc pro tunc order cannot change that date to avoid the rate in effect.

County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC · filed 2010-11-23(1)(c)

Interest on the judgment entered October 30, 2009, shall be calculated at the rate of ten percent per annum under Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (Supp.2009).

A written notice of claim under section 549.09 is a written demand for payment, and it need not state damages that are already calculable.

General Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd. · filed 2012-02-24(1)(b), (1)(c)(2)

The phrase “written notice of claim,” therefore, simply means a demand for payment (or other similar assertion) contained in a writing.

Minn. Stat. § 549.09 applies its lower, formula-based interest regime to judgments against a political subdivision, and a public utilities commission created by a statutory city qualifies as one.

Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission · filed 2017-07-10(1)(c)(1)(i), (1)(e)(2)

Together, these statutory provisions demonstrate that the legislature intended to authorize cities to provide electric service to customers in specified geographic areas and to allow cities to delegate to a public utilities commission the responsibility for performing this authorized government function. Because PUC is responsible for operating a public electric utility, it is an entity with a prescribed area and authority for subordinate local government. We, therefore, conclude that PUC is a “political subdivision,” under the common and ordinary meaning of that term, and we reverse the preverdict-interest award against PUC and remand for the district court to award respondents preverdict interest at a four-percent rate. ... Because a public utilities commission created by a statutory city pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 412.331-.391 is a political subdivision of the state for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c)(1)(i), the preverdict-interest award against PUC must be calculated at a rate of four percent.

For a judgment or award of $50,000 or less, § 549.09(c)(1)(i) requires simple interest at the annually calculated statutory rate.

Sunteck Transport Company, LLC v. King's Express, Inc. · filed 2019-03-18(c)(1)(i)

Minnesota law provides that, “[f[or a judgment or award of $50,000 or less . . ., the interest shall be computed as simple interest per annum” at a rate calculated once annually by the state court administrator using statutorily described benchmarks. Minn. Stat. § 549.09(c)(1)(i). For 2018 and 2019, Minnesota’s statutory rate on an award of $50,000 or less is 4%. See 2019 Interest Rates On State Court Judgments And Arbitration Awards, available at http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao_library/Interest-Rates-on-State-Court-Judgements.pdf (last accessed March 18, 2019). The Court sees no reason to discount that statutory rate; Sunteck promptly pursued litigation of this dispute, see Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655 (1983) (“undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit” may justify a lower rate of pre-judgment interest), and its Complaint and default-judgment brief provided notice to King’s that it was seeking pre-judgment interest at a higher rate than that ultimately awarded here, Sunteck Br. at 7 [ECF No. 12]; Compl. Prayer ¶ 2. Accordingly, the Court will award Sunteck pre-judgment interest at a rate of 4%.

Section 549.09 sets a ten-percent prejudgment-interest rate for qualifying judgments or awards over $50,000; the court applied the threshold and denied interest on $15,259.56 in funeral expenses.

Handy Jones v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota · filed 2023-10-03(c)(1)(ii)(2)

As to the funeral expenses, because they are below the threshold amount of $50,000 set forth in Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute, the court declines to award prejudgment interest. See Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subdiv. 1 (c)(1)(ii)(2) (“For a judgment or award over $50,000, other than a judgment or award for or against the state or a political subdivision of the state or a judgment or award in a family court action, the interest rate shall be ten percent per year until paid.”).

Section 549.09 provides that prejudgment interest accrues from the earliest qualifying event and is calculated at a 10 percent rate; a notice that does not establish a sufficiently definite claim does not trigger accrual.

Morse Electric, Inc. v. Stearns Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers, Inc. · filed 2025-09-18

Under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, prejudgment interest accrues from the earliest of three events: commencement of action, demand for arbitration, or written notice of claim. The rate is calculated at 10 percent. Id. SCS asserts that it should be awarded prejudgment interest from the time SCS sent the notice of claim to Plaintiff on February 16, 2022. Alternatively, SCS asks that the court use the date of the filing of its counterclaim. (Doc. 17.) The court finds that the notice of claim is not sufficient here. ... Therefore, the court finds that prejudgment interest is to accrue at the time SCS filed its counterclaim on June 10, 2022. As a result, SCS is entitled to $218,024.57 in prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1(c), authorizes prejudgment interest calculated from July 1, 1984, until judgment is finally entered.

Wilson v. Skogerboe · filed 1986-01-14(1)(c)

Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1984), appellant is entitled to interest calculated from July 1, 1984, the effective date of the statute, to the date judgment is finally entered. ... We therefore hold that appellant is not entitled to prejudgment interest prior to July 1, 1984, but is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c) calculated from July 1, 1984 until judgment is finally entered.

Section 549.09 requires prejudgment interest on pending causes of action beginning July 1, 1984, rather than from the date the action was commenced.

Schaefer v. Bork · filed 1987-10-20(1)

At the time appellant commenced this action, interest was only required from the time of the verdict. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1982). Since that time, however, the statute was amended to also require pre-judgment interest, which is computed “from the time of the commencement of the action.” 1984 Minn.Laws ch. 399, § 1 (codified as amended at Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1986)). An accompanying amendment specifically gave retroactive effect to the new provisions for pre-judgment interest, so that “interest begins to accrue on July 1, 1984 on any pending causes of action.” 1984 Minn.Laws ch. 472, § 2. Under the amended statute, therefore, appellant is entitled to pre-judgment interest. However, he is not entitled to interest from the date the action was commenced, as he claims, but from July 1, 1984, the date designated in the amended statute. The case must be remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment for prejudgment interest from July 1, 1984 to the date of the judgment.

Section 549.09 makes the 60-day counteroffer response permissive, causes later offers and counteroffers to supersede earlier ones, and generally starts prejudgment-interest accrual at commencement of the action or a written settlement demand, whichever is earlier; a later offer does not reset accrual.

Johnson v. Kromhout · filed 1989-08-23(1)(b)

If Lufkin had made no offer, ... would be controlling; however, Lufkin’s subsequent offer supersedes the legal effect of appellant’s earlier offer. ... Appellant argues the statute requires a counteroffer within 60 days or the right to make a counteroffer is waived. The statute’s language, however, is permissive (“the other party may serve * * * a written counteroffer within 60 days”). Adopting appellant’s argument would lead to undue inflexibility in the operation of the statute. ... The latter interpretation is consistent with the language of the statute. The first sentence provides that prejudgment interest is to be computed from the time the action is commenced or from the time of a written settlement demand, whichever occurs first. ... The phrase “if later,” however, plainly refers to the time special damages are incurred. ... In interpreting section 549.09, this court should give the statute a meaning which will carry out its dual purpose. ... The interpretation given the statute by the trial court would discourage settlement. ... Neither result would be consistent with the intent of the legislature.

Section 549.09(b) governs prejudgment interest on final judgments for liquidated or ascertainable damages, with interest accruing from the applicable statutory trigger, including a written notice of claim.

Nelson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · filed 1997-08-19(b)

Section 549.09 applies to final judgments for liquidated or ascertainable damages that do not depend on contingencies. ... Under section 549.09, once respondents filed that notice of claim, they were entitled to use of that money and Illinois Farmers deprived them of its use by denying the claim. ... Under these circumstances, the trial court followed the formula set in section 549.09 and correctly calculated the prejudgment interest to accrue from August 28, 1995, which was 60 days after respondents presented their proof of loss form.

A workers’ compensation employer’s statutory subrogation action is a third-party action eligible for prejudgment interest under section 549.09, subdivision 1(b)(1).

Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. · filed 2001-10-04(1)(b)(1)

We find nothing in section 549.09, subdivision 1(b)(1) that distinguishes between a third-party action that existed at common law and one that is a creature of statute.

Section 549.09 permits prejudgment interest separately from a Rule 68 lump-sum offer when the offer does not expressly include that interest.

Schwickert, Inc. v. Winnebago Seniors, Ltd. · filed 2004-05-27(1)

The failure of the Rule 68 offer to expressly include prejudgment interest in the lump sum offered means that prejudgment interest is separately recoverable against Schwickert and ECC as a cost and disbursement in addition to the lump sum.

Federal substantive law prevents recovery of section 549.09 prejudgment interest on a FELA claim.

Kennedy v. Soo Line Railroad Company · filed 2015-02-02(1)(a)

Accordingly, Kennedy is not entitled to prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09 does not authorize postverdict interest accruing before entry of judgment when federal substantive law governs a FELA action.

Kinworthy v. Soo Line Railroad · filed 2013-12-30(1)(a)

“Appellant contends that postverdict interest is a procedural matter, not substantive, and that, as a matter of state procedural law under Minn.Stat. § 549.09, he is entitled to interest from the time of the verdict until the entry of judgment. ... We conclude that postverdict interest that accrues before the entry of judgment unambiguously falls into the category of “prejudgment interest,” which presents a matter of federal substantive law in a FELA action. ... As a matter of federal substantive law, a prevailing party is not entitled to recover postverdict, prejudgment interest.”

Section 549.09 does not authorize pre-verdict or post-verdict prejudgment interest in a FELA action brought in Minnesota state court.

Kinworthy v. Soo Line Railroad Company, d/b/a CP Rail System · filed 2015-03-04(1)(a)-(b)

We conclude that prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a)-(b), whether it is pre-verdict or post-verdict, is not recoverable in a FELA action brought in Minnesota state court. The recoverability of post-verdict, prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a), in a FELA action brought in state court is governed by federal substantive law. Pursuant to Monessen, 486 U.S. at 338, a successful plaintiff in a FELA action is not entitled to recover post-verdict, prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09 does not apply to administrative proceedings because it does not reference the Administrative Procedures Act, the APA does not authorize interest awards under it, and its settlement-offer interest provision refers to calculation by “the judge.”

Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission · filed 1987-03-03subd. 1

The parties argue, and we agree, Minn.Stat. § 549.09 does not apply to administrative proceedings. The statute contains no reference to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), nor does the APA provide for interest awards under Minn. Stat. § 549.09. Further, the statute provides for interest to be calculated by “the judge” in cases of settlement offers. Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1986).

Minn. Stat. § 549.09 does not apply to prejudgment interest on statutory damages awarded exclusively under federal law.

Polaris Industries Inc v. TBL International Inc. · filed 2020-03-06(1)(b), (c)(2)

Because Polaris’s statutory damages award arises exclusively under federal law, Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute does not apply.

Section 549.09 supplements rather than replaces other applicable interest laws; when Minn. Stat. § 334.01 authorizes interest on legal indebtedness such as back rent, § 334.01 applies instead.

Hekel v. Hunter Warfield, Inc. · filed 2023-09-12(1)(b)

As in Hogenson, because § 334.01 allows interest on legal indebtedness such as back rent, that statute and not § 549.09 applies here.

Section 549.09 does not permit pre-verdict or post-verdict interest in addition to interest on overdue no-fault benefits, but post-judgment interest after those benefits merge into the judgment is limited to subdivision 2.

Motschenbacher v. New Hampshire Insurance Group · filed 1987-03-10(1)(b), (1)(a), (2)

The trial court in this ease properly refused to grant pre-verdict interest under Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b) (1984) in addition to interest on overdue payments. Its allowance of post-verdict interest under Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a) in addition to interest on overdue payments, however, was error and is reversed. ... We agree with respondent that appellant’s cause of action for benefits under the No-Fault Act, together with interest on any overdue benefits, merges in the judgment entered by the trial court. The award of post-judgment interest is therefore limited to interest allowed by Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 2.

Section 549.09 entitles a party awarded more than $50,000 to 10 percent annual interest from the arbitration award until judgment is entered.

Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill · filed 2019-04-081(a), (c)(2)

When a party is awarded more than $50,000, as Plaintiffs are here, that party is entitled to receive interest from the time of the award until judgment is entered at an annual rate of 10 percent. Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subds. 1(a), (c)(2). Plaintiffs calculate the post-award, prejudgment interest on the $3 million arbitration award to equal a daily rate of $821.92. Because this calculation is mathematically sound and consistent with the statute, Plaintiffs’ request for post-award, prejudgment interest at a daily rate of $821.92 is granted.

Section 549.09 provides that prejudgment interest runs from the verdict, award, or report until judgment is entered, while post-judgment interest runs from entry of the judgment or award until payment.

Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2020-03-24subds. 1–2

As to post-judgment interest, State Farm appears to be correct in the sense that it owes Federated nothing. Post-judgment interest accrues “on the unpaid balance of the judgment or award from the time that it is entered or made until it is paid.” See Minn. Stat. 549.09, subd. 2. Thus, even if State Farm was liable for post-judgment interest under its Policy at the time it entered into the Drake-Ryan Agreement, post-judgment interest had not yet accrued. Federated is therefore not entitled to reimbursement for any post-judgment interest it paid to McMillan.

Section 549.09 starts prejudgment interest at the earliest of action commencement, an arbitration demand, or qualifying written claim notice, applies a 10 percent rate when damages exceed $50,000, and starts post-award interest on the unpaid judgment or award from entry until payment.

New Oil Christian Center v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2025-02-271(b), 2

Pre-award interest begins to accrue at “the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of written notice of claim, whichever occurs first, except as provided herein.” Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). For a written notice of claim to be considered a triggering event for accrual purposes under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, it must sufficiently advise of the nature of the damages, and it must demand prompt payment. ... Under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, there is a flat 10 percent prejudgment interest rate where damages exceed $50,000. In Minnesota, post-award interest accrues annually on “the unpaid balance of the judgment or award from the time that it is entered or made until it is paid, at the annual rate provided in subdivision 1.” Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 2.

Subdivision 1(b) supplements rather than replaces common-law preverdict-interest rules: common-law interest applies when available, while subdivision 1(b) exclusively governs claims for which common-law preverdict interest is unavailable; subdivision 1(a) applies to postverdict interest calculated on the award including preverdict interest.

Hogenson v. Hogenson · filed 2014-08-11(1)(a), (1)(b)

Ultimately, we are persuaded by Trapp and Seaway that section 549.09 was meant to supplement, not replace, the existing law on preverdict interest. ... Therefore, we conclude that the phrase “[e]xcept as otherwise . . . allowed by law” requires that preverdict interest be calculated under existing common-law principles whenever possible. Because preverdict interest was allowed for conversion claims under common law, preverdict interest should be calculated from the date of conversion at 6% under section 334.01 to the date of the verdict if the damages are ascertainable or liquidated. ... When damages are not readily ascertainable, or when a claim did not allow for preverdict interest prior to the 1984 amendment, preverdict interest should be calculated exclusively under section 549.09, subd. 1(b), “from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.”

Section 549.09 bars prejudgment interest on future damages and provides for interest on an unpaid judgment balance at the rate prescribed by the state court administrator.

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd. · filed 1994-10-13(l)(b), (2), (l)(c)

Minnesota law bars pre-judgment interest on future damages. Minn.Stat. § 549.09(l)(b) (1992); Stinson v. Clark Equip. Co., 473 N.W.2d 333, 336 (Minn.Ct.App.1991, review denied). Since the damages were not segregated, there can be no prejudgment interest awarded. ... Minnesota law, Minn.Stat. § 549.09(2) provides that interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the judgment as prescribed each year by the state court administrator pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.09(l)(c). For 1993, the state court administrator determined the interest rate to be to 4% per annum simple interest. ... As to 3M’s point of error number nine, we reform the judgment of the court below by deleting the award of pre-judgment interest and establishing post-judgment interest at 4 percent and as reformed, 3M’s point of error nine is sustained.

Section 549.09 provides for pre-award interest beginning at the earliest specified event, including written notice of the claim, at 10% for qualifying awards, and for post-award interest through entry of judgment; federal law governs interest after judgment in a diversity action.

Savanna Grove Coach Homeowners' Association v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-29(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c)(2), and (2)

“Except as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law,” pre-award interest on an appraisal award begins accruing “from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first[.]” Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). “For a judgment or award over $50,000, . . . the interest rate shall be ten percent per year until paid.” Id., subd. 1(c)(2). ... Savanna Grove’s written notice of its claim, as described above, is sufficient to trigger pre-award interest. ... Accordingly, pre-award interest will be awarded for the time period from June 11, 2017, until the date of the appraisal award. ... With respect to post-award interest, Minn. Stat. § 549.09 applies. ... Because federal law governs post-judgment interest, interest from the entry of judgment until payment is not available to Savanna Grove under section 549.09. Rather, post-award interest is more properly awarded here under subdivision 1(a) of section 549.09, which provides for interest “from the time of the verdict, award, or report until judgment is finally entered[.]” Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, post-award interest will be calculated at 10% on the unpaid balance of the entire appraisal award from the time of the appraisal award until entry of judgment.”

Section 549.09 did not entitle the wife to interest on a marital lien where the dissolution decree neither awarded interest nor set a payment deadline; the court treated Riley II's rule for a dated money award as inapplicable.

In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Kremer · filed 2024-01-02

Riley II is distinguishable from this case in two important ways. ... In fact, neither opinion mentioned a marital lien, much less discussed the accumulation of interest on a marital lien under section 549.09. ... This court has said that “marital liens . . . are not judgment liens; they are a method of distributing property in a dissolution proceeding.” ... Thus, the requirement, in Riley II, that husband pay wife $30,000 by a date certain is not the same as the “marital lien” in this case.

Section 549.09 requires the statutory interest rate on the unpaid marital lien rather than the 14% rate ordered by the trial court.

Marriage of Fernandez v. Fernandez · filed 1985-09-03

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1984) provides for a statutory rate of interest on verdicts and judgments. The statutory rate set by the state court administrator for 1984-85 is 9%. Therefore, it was error to order 14% interest.

Section 549.09, subdivision 1 requires the judgment to bear the statutory interest rate, which was 9% here.

Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen · filed 1985-09-17(1)

Beverly concedes that the statutory interest rate of 9% should have been applied to the judgment. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1984). ... We remand for an application of the formula in accordance with this opinion, for a possible reconsideration of the marital property, or apportionment of the non-marital interest, in the discretion of the trial court, and for a reduction of the interest rate to 9%.

Section 549.09 provides interest on verdicts and judgments, but it does not apply to a lien whose payment is not due until specified contingencies occur.

Marriage Of: Thomas v. Thomas · filed 1986-03-25

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1984) provides for the payment of interest on verdicts and judgments. The statute ensures that the party entitled to the judgment is reimbursed for any amounts lost due to late payment of the judgment. This lien is not within the purview of § 549.09. Appellant is not entitled to receipt of the money until one of the contingencies occurs. Thus, he will not have lost the use of his money because of non-payment of a judgment.

Section 549.09's simple-interest requirement does not apply to condemnation awards when just compensation requires accounting for the compound returns available from reasonable and prudent investments.

State Ex Rel. Humprey v. Briggs · filed 1992-07-14(1)(c)

Because just compensation requires a judicial determination of the return on reasonable and prudent investments, the requirement in Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c) that interest shall be computed as simple interest cannot apply to condemnation awards. The trial court award of simple interest is reversed. On remand the trial court must determine the total return that would have been available to Briggs had he been paid the value of the property at the time of taking in money and made reasonable and prudent investments. If reasonable and prudent investments would have allowed Briggs to earn compound interest, the interest award should include the interest that would have been earned.

Section 549.09 provides interest on judgments or awards, but it does not apply before a party has received a judgment or award.

U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. · filed 2011-09-07

The Moores also rely on Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (2010), which provides for interest on judgments or awards. But the Moores have not yet received a judgment or award, and therefore Minn.Stat. § 549.09 does not apply.

Section 549.09 does not permit interest on a damages verdict for the period before the defendant's liability is finally established when liability issues are retried.

Johnson v. Moberg · filed 1984-09-18

The amount was calculated as provided for interest on verdicts under Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1982). ... Similarly, an obligation calling for interest does not arise before liability is established. ... In spite of Moberg’s apparent fault, his legal obligation remained unsettled at the outset of the second trial. ... Evidence in the case shows without question that it was unlikely Moberg would be exonerated from liability as a joint tort-feasor, either by a finding that he was not at fault or a finding that Pesta was more at fault. Still, final judicial decisions on Moberg’s liability did not occur until all evidence was received in the second trial. ... Interest was erroneously included in plaintiff’s judgment and the trial court decision on that item is reversed.

The 1984 amendment to § 549.09 was effective July 1, 1984, and did not govern this case.

Bilotta ex rel. Cutting v. Kelley Co. · filed 1984-12-04subd. 1

The Minnesota Legislature, during its 1984 session, amended Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1982), to provide prejudgment interest in most cases. Act of April 19, 1984, Minn.Laws ch. 399, § 1. The newly amended statute was effective July 1, 1984, and does not apply here. See 1984 Minn.Laws ch. 472, § 2.

Section 549.09 bars pre-verdict or pre-report interest on a judgment not exceeding the amount specified in § 487.30, but permits interest from the verdict date.

Gary Builders Supply, Inc. v. Menard, Inc. · filed 1985-12-03subd. 1, clause (4)

Prejudgment interest may be awarded under Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (Supp. 1985), ... subject to certain exceptions: ... Except as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, pre-verdict or pre-re-port interest shall not be awarded on the following: * * * * * * ... (4) judgments not in excess of the amount specified in section 487.30 * * ... Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (Supp.1985). Minn.Stat. § 487.30 limits the jurisdiction of the conciliation court to $1,250. Minn. Stat. § 487.30, subd. 1 (Supp.1985). The judgment of $1,121 comes within this exception. ... 3. The award of prejudgment interest is modified to allow interest only from the date of the verdict.

The 1984 amendment to section 549.09 applies to pending causes of action, with prejudgment interest calculated under subdivision 1(c) from July 1, 1984 through judgment.

L.P. Medical Specialists, Ltd. v. St. Louis County · filed 1985-12-10(1)(c)

In 1984, the Minnesota Legislature amended Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 (1984) to provide prejudgment interest in most cases. ... That amendment became effective July 1, 1984, and interest began to accrue on that date on any pending causes of action. ... We find that the 1984 amendment applies in this case with respect to the time period between July 1, 1984 and March 14, 1985, the date judgment was entered against St. Louis County. For that time period, Virginia Regional is entitled to interest calculated pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c).

The 1984 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 549.09 mandated prejudgment interest in most cases and made interest on pending causes of action accrue from July 1, 1984; prejudgment interest for an earlier period could still be awarded under prior Minnesota law when unliquidated damages were readily ascertainable.

In Re Estate of Renczykowski · filed 1987-07-28

The original amendment to Minn.Stat. § 549.09, which mandated prejudgment interest in most cases, became effective July 1,1984, and the legislature determined that interest would begin to accrue as of that date on any pending causes of action. 1984 Minn.Laws, ch. 472, § 2; ... Although interest clearly arises in this case as of July 1,1984, the trial court did not err in accruing interest as of 1970. Before Minn.Stat. § 549.09 was amended to allow prejudgment interest, Minnesota allowed prejudgment interest in cases involving un-liquidated demands when damages were readily ascertainable by computation or reference to generally recognized standards. ... Here, the agreement signed by Alex and Emil, tax records, and other records clearly itemized the farm equipment’s value in 1970, less depreciation, at $23,545. Interest from 1970 thus is permissible since at that time damages were readily ascertainable by recognized standards.

Section 549.09 requires prejudgment interest on substantive pecuniary-damage claims, including contribution claims, and its workers’ compensation exception does not exclude third-party actions.

Germann v. F.L. Smithe Co. · filed 1986-03-25(b)(1)

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest because the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously requires that prejudgment interest be computed on awards of pecuniary damages and makes no exception for claims based on contribution. We agree. ... We believe that the legislature, in enacting Minn.Stat. § 549.09 seven years after Lambertson was decided, intended that courts award interest on any substantive claim for pecuniary damages, including a claim for contribution.

Section 549.09 allows preverdict interest on pecuniary damages from the commencement of the action; it does not apply when the judgment is not for pecuniary damages.

Alton M. Johnson Co. v. M.A.I. Co. · filed 1990-04-13

Respondents, on the other hand, reference Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1988) as allowing prejudgment interest. We hold that Minn.Stat. § 549.09 is inapplicable and reverse as to the prejudgment interest award. Minn.Stat. § 549.09 allows preverdict interest on pecuniary damages from the time of the commencement of the action.

Section 549.09 excludes future damages from prejudgment interest, so an unmatured contribution claim does not accrue prejudgment interest before it matures.

Bursch v. Beardsley & Piper · filed 1991-05-08(1)(b)(3)

DeZurik asserts that Germann is inapplicable because it was decided prior to a 1986 amendment of § 549.09 in which judgments for future damages were excepted from prejudgment interest. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09 subd. 1(b)(3). ... The Court finds DeZurik’s argument persuasive. The purpose of prejudgment interest, as set forth in Lienhard v. State of Minnesota, 431 N.W.2d 861 (Minn.1988) is to more fully compensate claimants for “loss of use of the money due as damages.” Id. at 865. The 1986 amendment excluding future damages from prejudgment interest supports this interpretation of legislative intent and undercuts the authority of Germann. Beardsley & Piper has experienced no loss of the use of money due as damages until its contribution claim matures. ... The Court finds that neither Minn.Stat. § 549.09 nor the equities involved in this case warrant an award of prejudgment interest on Beardsley & Piper’s contribution claim against DeZurik.

Section 549.09 does not allow interest before a verdict when the amount owed cannot be ascertained until the jury assesses damages.

Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company · filed 1969-07-18

Where the amount of liability has not been ascertained, there is no liability for interest thereon prior to the time of its ascertainment. The right to interest here is governed by Minn. St. 549.09.” ... That rule is applicable here.

Section 549.09 allows interest on a contribution claim from the date a verdict establishes the parties’ common liability.

Holmgren Ex Rel. Holmgren v. Heisick · filed 1970-06-26

Interest on the contribution claim of Northwestern is allowable from November 17, 1966. It was on this day that the jury returned its verdict in the Holmgren action, answering special interrogatories to the effect that both Allan Heisick and David Schmit had been causally negligent and that Schmit’s negligence had not been willful and wanton.

Section 549.09 does not authorize prejudgment interest on attorney fees in this situation.

Wilson v. Saetre · filed 1986-09-02

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 provides for awards of prejudgment interest and states in part: Except as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, pre-verdict or pre-re-port interest shall not be awarded on the following: ****** (5) that portion of any verdict or report which is founded upon interest, or costs, disbursements, attorney fees, or other similar items added by the court. This statute does not authorize payment of interest on attorney fees in situations such as this.

Section 549.09 bars an award of its prejudgment interest when interest is otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law.

Burniece v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · filed 1987-01-02(b)

While resolution of this issue becomes a question of policy, in making that decision we cannot escape the unambiguous words of the statute. Within section 549.09 the legislature expressly forbade an award of prejudgment interest under that section when interest is “otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law.” We therefore reverse the court of appeals and hold that interest on overdue basic economic loss benefits under Minn. Stat. § 65B.54, subd. 2, is prejudgment interest, precluding the award of additional prejudgment interest.

Section 549.09 requires interest on a money judgment to be calculated from the verdict or report through final entry of judgment and added to the judgment.

Westbrook State Bank v. Johnson · filed 1987-06-16subd. 1

When the judgment is for the recovery of money, * * * interest from the time of the verdict or report until judgment is finally entered shall be computed by the court administrator * * * and added to the judgment. ... Here the trial court properly awarded prejudgment interest from the date of the original verdict. ... The court erred, however, in not awarding interest until the final entry of judgment on November 25, 1986, as required by the statute.

Section 549.09 does not authorize interest for the period before an arbitration award.

Jensen v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 1987-05-051(b)

Based on strict statutory interpretation, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held Minn.Stat. § 549.09 does not apply to prearbitration awards. ... We therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of prejudgment interest prior to the arbitration award.

Section 549.09 does not apply to a civil service proceeding because the proceeding is not judicial and produces no judgment.

County of Ramsey v. Neujahr · filed 1987-07-14

State statute does allow prejudgment interest on judgments and verdicts. See Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1986). However, section 549.09 does not apply in this case because there has been no “judgment” in this case.

Section 549.09 does not authorize prejudgment interest in administrative proceedings because it contains no reference to the Administrative Procedures Act and the APA provides no interest award under the statute.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Mower County Social Services · filed 1989-01-17

Minn.Stat. § 549.09 does not apply to administrative proceedings. The statute contains no references to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), nor does the APA provide for interest awards under Minn.Stat. § 549.09.

Section 549.09, subd. 1(b) does not apply to nonbinding arbitration proceedings, so it does not authorize prejudgment interest on their awards.

Behrendt v. Vergin · filed 1989-02-21(1)(b)

The prejudgment interest provisions of Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b) do not apply to nonbinding arbitration proceedings under Minn.Stat. § 484.73.