Hawaii: Prejudgment Interest Rules
The short answer
Yes, but it's entirely up to the judge. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 636-16 lets a judge in any civil case — contract or tort — decide both whether to award prejudgment interest at all and what date it starts running from, as long as that date isn't earlier than the injury (for a tort claim) or the breach (for a contract claim). The rate is the general 10% legal rate under § 478-2, unless the parties' own written contract sets a different rate. The one sharp limit: the State of Hawaii itself is immune from prejudgment interest on almost every claim against it, by two separate statutes.
| Governing law | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 636-16 gives the court discretion to award prejudgment interest and set its start date in any civil case; § 478-2 (the general 'legal rate' statute) supplies the rate once interest is awarded; a separate provision, § 478-3, sets 10% interest on the judgment itself after entry (the postjudgment companion) |
|---|---|
| Interest rate | 10% a year under § 478-2's general legal rate — the same rate used for a § 636-16 prejudgment award — except that an obligation of the State itself draws that calendar quarter's Wall Street Journal prime rate instead, capped at 10%; a written contract's own stated rate controls instead of either default |
| When interest starts running | Whatever date the judge finds fits the case's circumstances (§ 636-16), a discretionary standard meant to correct for how long a case took to reach judgment — except that the date can never be earlier than the date of injury for a tort claim or the date of breach for a contract claim |
| Contract vs. tort claims | Not split into separate statutes or rates: a single provision, § 636-16, covers civil cases generally, giving the court the same discretionary power over both the decision to award interest and the start date regardless of claim type. The only claim-type difference is which event (injury vs. breach) marks the earliest possible starting point |
| Mandatory or discretionary | Fully discretionary for every claim type: the statute says the judge 'is authorized to designate' a commencement date, and Hawaii courts routinely deny prejudgment interest where the case wasn't unreasonably delayed, reviewed only for abuse of discretion |
| Simple or compound | No statute addresses whether judgment interest compounds; case law and practice describe it as a flat rate 'per annum,' consistent with simple interest. The one Hawaii statute barring compound interest, § 478-7, is limited by its own text to consumer credit transactions and credit-card agreements, not general civil judgments |
| Claims against the government | The State is categorically immune from prejudgment interest on almost every claim against it. § 662-2 (State Tort Liability Act) says the State 'shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment,' confirmed as a deliberate, unwaived reservation of immunity in Taylor-Rice v. State, 105 Hawai'i 104, 94 P.3d 659 (2004). § 661-8 (general claims against the State) separately bars prejudgment interest on any claim against the State unless it's founded on a contract that expressly stipulates for interest, or a litigated-claims-fund refund, confirmed in Garner v. State, Dep't of Educ., 122 Hawai'i 150, 223 P.3d 215 (2009). Counties are not covered by the State Tort Liability Act, so this survey found no similar immunity for them |
| Other exceptions | § 636-16's discretion is not limited to liquidated damages — an unliquidated tort claim can still draw prejudgment interest, unlike states that require a fixed or easily calculable sum. Conversely, a federal court applying Hawaii law has held there's no authority to award § 636-16 interest where the entire case was resolved through arbitration rather than litigated to judgment |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
The short answer
Hawaii doesn't split prejudgment interest into separate contract and tort statutes the way many states do. One provision, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 636-16, covers "civil cases" generally: the judge decides whether to award prejudgment interest at all, and picks the date it starts running from, based on what's fair given how the case unfolded. The only constraint is a floor on how far back that date can go — no earlier than the date of injury for a tort claim, or the date of breach for a contract claim. Once awarded, the rate is the general 10% "legal rate" set by § 478-2, unless a written contract between the parties already fixes a different rate. The one place Hawaii draws a hard line is claims against the State itself, which is immune from prejudgment interest in nearly every case, by two separate statutes.
Requirements one by one
Governing law
A single statute does the heavy lifting: § 636-16, titled "Awarding interest," authorizes a judge "in awarding interest in civil cases" to pick the commencement date. It doesn't create the interest rate itself — for that, it cross-references § 478-2, the state's general "legal rate" statute, which Hawaii courts have applied to prejudgment awards under § 636-16 since at least the 1990s. A separate provision, § 478-3, sets 10% interest specifically "on any judgment recovered," which functions as Hawaii's postjudgment rate; Hawaii case law is explicit that § 478-3 interest doesn't stack on top of a § 636-16 prejudgment award for the same period.
Interest rate
The default is 10% a year under § 478-2 — the same statute used for ordinary debts like a promissory note or an open account. If the underlying obligation is one of the State's own, § 478-2 instead uses "the prime rate for each calendar quarter," as posted in the Wall Street Journal on the first business day of the preceding month, but that rate can never exceed 10%. If the parties have a written contract that already fixes its own interest rate, that contract rate controls instead of the statutory default — § 478-2 only applies "when there is no express written contract fixing a different rate."
When interest starts running
Under § 636-16, the judge picks the commencement date to fit the circumstances of the case — Hawaii courts have described this as a remedial rule meant to correct for injustice when a judgment is delayed a long time for any reason, not just when one side caused the delay. The only limit on how early that date can be: for a tort claim, no earlier than when the injury first occurred; for a contract claim, no earlier than when the breach first occurred. Courts can and do pick a later date, including the date suit was filed, if that better fits the case.
Contract vs. tort claims
Hawaii is unusual in this survey for not splitting contract and tort into separate prejudgment-interest statutes, rates, or mandatory/discretionary rules at all. Section 636-16 applies the identical framework to both: the same judge-decided commencement date, the same underlying discretion over whether to award interest in the first place. The only place the claim type matters is the floor on the earliest possible start date — injury for tort, breach for contract — and Hawaii case law confirms this discretion isn't limited to liquidated damages, so an unliquidated personal-injury claim can draw prejudgment interest just as easily as a debt claim can.
Mandatory or discretionary
Entirely discretionary, and Hawaii's appellate courts have said so repeatedly. Section 636-16 says the judge "is authorized to designate" a commencement date — permissive language, not a mandate. Hawaii courts have upheld a trial court's denial of prejudgment interest where the defendant didn't unduly delay the proceedings, and have separately upheld an award where a case dragged on for years, reviewing either outcome only for abuse of discretion.
Simple or compound
No Hawaii statute directly addresses whether prejudgment or judgment interest compounds. Case law and everyday practice describe it as a flat rate "per annum" (for example, awarding "ten per cent interest per annum" on back pay), which is how simple interest is conventionally expressed. Hawaii does have a statute barring compound interest — § 478-7 — but it's narrow by its own terms, reaching only "any consumer credit transaction or... any credit card agreement," not general civil judgments or § 636-16 awards.
Claims against the government
This is where Hawaii is strictest. Two separate statutes bar prejudgment interest against the State. For a tort claim under the State Tort Liability Act, § 662-2 says the State "shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages" — language the Hawaii Supreme Court has called "a plain reservation of immunity with respect to prejudgment interest" in Taylor-Rice v. State, 105 Hawai'i 104, 94 P.3d 659 (2004). For claims against the State generally (including contract and statutory claims under chapter 661), § 661-8 bars prejudgment interest on any claim "unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest, or upon a refund of a payment into the 'litigated claims fund.'" The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals confirmed in Garner v. State, Dep't of Educ., 122 Hawai'i 150, 223 P.3d 215 (2009) that § 478-2's general rate provision doesn't override this limit — the State's obligation to pay prejudgment interest is confined to that narrow contract exception. Counties are handled differently: Hawaii's own case notes confirm counties don't fall within the State Tort Liability Act at all, and this survey found no equivalent county-specific interest bar.
Other exceptions
Two practical wrinkles stand out. First, § 636-16's discretion isn't limited to liquidated or easily-calculated damages — a genuinely unliquidated tort verdict (like pain and suffering) can still draw prejudgment interest in Hawaii, which is more claimant-friendly than states that require a fixed or mathematically ascertainable sum before interest can run at all. Second, at least one federal court applying Hawaii law has held that a court lacks authority to award § 636-16 prejudgment interest where the entire case was resolved through arbitration rather than carried through to a litigated judgment — worth flagging for anyone routing a dispute through arbitration and expecting the same interest exposure as a lawsuit.
What trips people up
The biggest surprise for anyone used to a state with separate contract and tort interest statutes is that Hawaii doesn't have one: § 636-16 covers both, and the real variable isn't claim type, it's how the individual judge exercises discretion. Two nearly identical claims in front of two different judges can come out with different commencement dates, or no prejudgment interest at all, because the statute gives the court broad latitude to "conform with the circumstances of each case."
The second trap is assuming the State pays interest like any other defendant. It doesn't, in almost every situation: § 662-2 and § 661-8 both bar prejudgment interest against the State, and the narrow contract exception in § 661-8 requires the contract to expressly stipulate for interest — silence, or a general reference to interest, isn't enough.
Common questions
Is Hawaii's prejudgment interest rate always 10%?
That's the default under § 478-2, but it drops to a capped prime rate if the debtor is the State itself, and it's displaced entirely by a written contract's own stated rate when one exists.
Can I get prejudgment interest on a personal injury claim in Hawaii even though my damages weren't a fixed dollar amount?
Yes. Hawaii case law confirms § 636-16's discretion isn't limited to liquidated damages, so an unliquidated tort verdict can still draw prejudgment interest if the judge decides the circumstances warrant it.
Can I get prejudgment interest if I sue the State of Hawaii?
Almost never. Both § 662-2 (tort claims) and § 661-8 (most other claims) bar it, with only a narrow exception for a contract that expressly stipulates for interest.
Does Hawaii's prejudgment interest compound?
No statute says either way for ordinary civil judgments, but courts and practice consistently describe the rate as a flat annual figure, consistent with simple interest.
Statutes and sources
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 636-16 — "In awarding interest in civil cases, the judge is authorized to designate the commencement date to conform with the circumstances of each case, provided that the earliest commencement date in cases arising in tort, may be the date when the injury first occurred and in cases arising by breach of contract, it may be the date when the breach first occurred." Accessed 2026-07-05: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0636/HRS_0636-0016.htm
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2 — "When there is no express written contract fixing a different rate of interest, interest shall be allowed at the rate of ten per cent a year, except that, with respect to obligations of the State, interest shall be allowed at the prime rate for each calendar quarter but in no event shall exceed ten per cent a year..." Accessed 2026-07-05: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0478/HRS_0478-0002.htm
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-3 — "Interest at the rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, shall be allowed on any judgment recovered before any court in the State, in any civil suit." Accessed 2026-07-05: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0478/HRS_0478-0003.htm
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-7 — "No action shall be maintainable in any court of the State to recover compound interest upon any consumer credit transaction or upon any credit card agreement whatever." Accessed 2026-07-05: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0478/HRS_0478-0007.htm
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-2 — "The State hereby waives its immunity for liability for the torts of its employees and shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." Accessed 2026-07-05: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-36/chapter-662/section-662-2/
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-8 — "No interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon by the court, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest, or upon a refund of a payment into the \"litigated claims fund\" as provided by law." Accessed 2026-07-05: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0661/HRS_0661-0008.htm
- Taylor-Rice v. State, 105 Hawai'i 104, 94 P.3d 659 (2004) — held § 662-2 is "a plain reservation of immunity with respect to prejudgment interest on judgments rendered against the State." Accessed 2026-07-05 (via law.justia.com citation record; case confirmed through Justia's Garner v. State opinion, which cites it as "105 Haw. 104, 109-10, 94 P.3d 659, 665-66 (2004)")
- Garner v. State, Dep't of Educ., 122 Hawai'i 150, 223 P.3d 215 (2009) — confirmed § 661-8 bars prejudgment interest against the State except under a contract expressly stipulating for interest. Accessed 2026-07-05: https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/intermediate-court-of-appeals/2009/27912-1.html
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.