Anderson et al. v. Raymond Corporation

Filing 401

ORDER: 382 Motion to Include Pre-Judgment Interest in Forthcoming Judgment GRANTED. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 3/26/2024. (anb2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ADELAIDA ANDERSON,
individually, and as Administrator
of the Estate of Jeffrey Lee
Anderson, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 19-CV-00800

v.
THE RAYMOND CORPORATION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Adelaida Anderson’s Motion to Include PreJudgment Interest in Forthcoming Judgment. (Doc. 382). Anderson seeks application
of an Illinois statute that governs prejudgment interest in personal injury and
wrongful death cases. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1303. Under section 1303(c), in personal
injury or wrongful death actions, “the plaintiff shall recover prejudgment interest on
all damages, except punitive damages, sanctions, statutory attorney’s fees, and
statutory costs, set forth in the judgment.” “The statute requires prejudgment
interest on damages (with a few exceptions) at a rate of 6% per annum.” Costa v.
Ramaiah, 2022 WL 7501146, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2022) (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-1303).
“But under the statute, the amount of prejudgment interest can vary, depending on
the existence and amount of a settlement offer.” Costa, 2022 WL 7501146, at *1.
“Basically, the statute rewards defendants for making prompt settlement offers.” Id.
“If the judgment is higher than the settlement offer, then the plaintiff can recover
Page 1 of 2

prejudgment interest only on the delta between the judgment and the settlement
offer.” Id. “But if the judgment is lower than the settlement offer, then the plaintiff
cannot recover prejudgment interest at all.” Id. “So, the defendant does not have to
pay prejudgment interest on the portion of a judgment that is equal to the amount of
a settlement offer.” Id.
In response, Defendant Raymond Corporation, citing a few Illinois circuit court
rulings, states that the Illinois statute was unconstitutional on many fronts and that
the statute is fundamentally unfair in its application regardless of constitutionality.
While constitutionality of the statute may be in doubt, as things stand, it appears
that most courts have upheld it, even on appeal. The Court also points out that
“[u]nder Illinois law, the decisions of circuit courts have no precedential value . . . .”
Delgado v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs of City of Chicago, 224 Ill. 2d 481, 488, 865 N.E.2d
183, 188 (2007). While Raymond has brought up many valid examples of why the
statute is confounding and facially unfair, the Court will not strike it down. Plaintiff
Adelaida Anderson’s Motion to Include Pre-Judgment Interest in Forthcoming
Judgment (Doc. 382) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

March 26, 2024
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2