The proper test is (1) are there sufficient similarities to make the comparison probative, and (2) are the dissimilarities likely to distort the comparison to the extent that the evidence is not relevant? In this regard, can the dissimilarities be adjusted for and/or explained so that their effect on the comparison can be explained to and/or understood by the jury? American Nat'l Water-mattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1337-38 (Alaska 1982); see also Norfolk W. Ry. v. Henderson, 132 Va. 297, 111 S.E. 277 (1922); Blevins v. Cushman Motors, 551 S.W.2d 602, 610 (Mo. 1977) ("the degree of similarity or difference should be judged in the light of the fundamental principal that any fact should be admissible which logically tends to aid the trier in determination of the issue") (citations omitted). I have no quarrel with the majority adopting the test concerning the admissibility of experimental evidence as articulated in Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 628 (Alaska 1969).

Cf. Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md.App. 549, 694 A.2d 150, 161 (1997) ("Impairment of earning capacity is measured by the lost capacity to earn, rather than what a plaintiff would have earned.") (citation and quotation marks omitted).See, e.g., Am. Nat'l Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1342 (Alaska 1982) (affirming a superior court's decision to instruct the jury on lost earning capacity for a plaintiff with negligible actual earnings, and rejecting the defendant's argument that the plaintiff "had no . . . [earning] capacity, because she had worked for [a] family-owned business for many years for an almost nominal salary"); Grimes, 641 P.2d at 818 n. 3 (citing Morrison v. State, 516 P.2d 402, 405 (Alaska 1973) for the proposition that "[t]he right of an injured homemaker to recover for impaired earning capacity regardless of whether she was employed before the injury exemplifies the distinction between an award for lost earnings and an award for lost earning capacity").See Univ. of Alaska v. Chauvin, 521 P.2d 1234, 1240 (Alaska 1974) (noting that a university employee alleging breach of contract was required to mitigate his damages "if it did not involve embarrassment or hardship," and holding that the employee was not required to take an untenured position that was not comparable to

[¶ 50.] It is imperative to note, however, that of the courts which favor the inclusion of the settlement amount in the calculation of prejudgment interest, some formula is applied to prevent a double recovery by the plaintiff, who would otherwise have the use of the settlement money and then collect interest on it. The Alaska Supreme Court created the first such formula in American National Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330 (Alaska 1982). [¶ 51.] In Manville, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed a trial court's computation of interest in which the lower court deducted a $60,000 settlement from the judgment before computing prejudgment interest.

"The party opposing a prejudgment interest award bears the burden to show that a double recovery would result; otherwise prejudgment interest is awarded as a matter of course."Am. Nat'l Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1343 (Alaska 1982). See also Bevins v. Peoples Bank Trust Co., 671 P.2d 875, 881 (Alaska 1983) ("The purpose of awarding prejudgment interest is not to penalize the losing party, but rather to compensate the successful claimant for losing the use of the money between the date he or she was entitled to it and the date of judgment.").

First, Merrill suggests that the Margadonna method of calculating interest is unfair to a settling plaintiff and unwise as a matter of policy and that, therefore, that decision ought to be revisited and overturned. Merrill bids us to adopt an interest-computation rule similar to that espoused by the Alaska Supreme Court in American National Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330 (Alaska 1982) (American Watermattress). Second, Merrill contends that application of the Margadonna method of interest calculation violates constitutional equal-protection mandates.

See Van Alen v. Anchorage Ski Club, 536 P.2d 784, 787 (Alaska 1975); Miller v. Harpster, 392 P.2d 21, 23-24 (Alaska 1964). See also American National Watermattress v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1332 n. 1 (Alaska 1982) (noting that these work product decisions are not controlling as to application of the attorney-client privilege). A shrinking majority of states prohibit discovery of statements made by an insured to his insurer.

Id. at 624 (citations omitted). Similarly, in American National Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1340 (Alaska 1982), we reiterated with approval the standard to be used in deciding whether a damage award is excessive which was enunciated in Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967). In Beaulieu, a judge-tried case, the court stated:

The last issue we address is the award of prejudgment interest. In our recent opinion of American National Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330 (Alaska 1982), we reiterated that prejudgment interest is in the nature of compensatory damages, not costs. We noted that "prejudgment interest is necessary to compensate plaintiff for the loss of the use of the money from the date of injury until the date of judgment."

The district court awarded Daniel $1.3 million for physical and emotional pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Alaska law entitles a plaintiff to damages for these injuries. American Nat'l Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1341 (Alaska 1982); Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P.2d 665, 674-76 (Alaska 1967). The Alaska Supreme Court has held: "there is no fixed measure of compensation in awarding damages for pain and suffering, and such an award necessarily rests in the good sense and deliberate judgment" of the trial court.

Alaska has long recognized that "interest is in the nature of compensatory damages, not costs." Amer. Nat'l Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1343 (Alaska 1982). Because plaintiff has allegedly lost interest on the sales tax she paid, it is plausible that she has lost property as a result of defendants' conduct.