Summary
In Farmers, the Court followed Central Michigan in computing interest after the complaint was filed and only from the date that benefits were paid.
Summary of this case from Hi-Mill Mfg. v. Aetna Cas. Sur.Opinion
Docket No. 110431.
Decided September 5, 1990; approved for publication November 9, 1990, at 9:01 A.M.
Charles F. Filipiak, for Farmers Insurance Group.
Nill, Kirby Rockwell, P.C. (by Donald G. Rockwell), for Home Mutual Insurance Company.
Lily Lynch was seriously injured in an automobile accident on September 30, 1983. Farmers Insurance Group, the insurer of the automobile Lynch was driving began paying Lynch's no-fault insurance benefits and, on April 23, 1984, commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Genesee Circuit Court against the Home Mutual Insurance Company. Home Mutual was the insurer of automobiles owned by Lynch's husband. The priority dispute between Farmers and Home Mutual was eventually resolved on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan Mutual Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 426 Mich. 346; 395 N.W.2d 192 (1986). Pursuant to the trial court's order, Home Mutual reimbursed Farmers on December 10, 1987, in an amount equal to fifty percent of the total benefits paid to Lynch by Farmers. Farmers appeals as of right from the trial court's July 8, 1988, order awarding prejudgment interest on benefits paid after commencement of the action only from the date the benefits were paid, rather than from the date the action was commenced. We affirm.
Interest on a money judgment in a civil action is awarded "from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment." MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. The purpose of prejudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing party for the delay in recovering money damages. McCahill v Commercial Union Ins Co, 179 Mich. App. 761, 777, n 1; 446 N.W.2d 579 (1989). Compensation of a party for the costs and expenses of litigation is not a purpose of prejudgment interest. Id. Compensation for those items is expressly provided for elsewhere. See, e.g., MCR 2.625. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly followed this Court's decision in Central Michigan Univ Faculty Ass'n v Stengren, 142 Mich. App. 455, 461; 370 N.W.2d 383 (1985), and awarded Farmers prejudgment interest on benefits paid after commencement of the action only from the date the benefits were paid. But see Om-El Export Co, Inc v Newcor, Inc, 154 Mich. App. 471, 482 ; 398 N.W.2d 440 (1986), lv den 426 Mich. 878 (1986) (consideration of certified conflict denied). Farmers did not suffer any loss of the use of funds for which interest could accrue until the benefits were paid.
Affirmed.