United States District Court, D. Colorado
MARY E. SPENDRUP, individually and on behalf of Quentin O. Spendrup, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant
For Mary E. Spendrup, on behalf of Quentin O. Spendrup, Mary (I) E. Spendrup, Individually, Plaintiffs: Andrew J. Nolan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Peters, Nolan, & Devlin, LLC, Grand Junction, CO; Andrew James Peters, LEAD ATTORNEY, Peters & Nolan, LLC, Grand Junction, CO.
For American Family Mutual Insurance Company, a Wisconsin Corporation, Defendant: Clifton J. Latiolais, Jr., Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP-Denver, Denver, CO; Rebecca Kirsten Wagner, Campbell, Latiolais & Averbach, LLC, Denver, CO.
Kristen L. Mix, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mary Spendrup's Motion for Entry of Judgment to Include Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to C.R.S. 13-21-101(1) [#96] (the " First Motion") and Plaintiff Mary Spendrup's Motion for Entry of Judgment to Include Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to C.R.S. 13-21-101(1) [#97] (the " Second Motion" and, collectively with the First Motion, the " Motions"). The Motions are identical except that they attach different exhibits. The First Motion attaches a check drawn by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company in the amount of $985, 000.00 payable to Plaintiff. First Motion, Ex. 1 [#96-1] at 1. The Second Motion attaches a chart that is labeled " Exhibit 2." Second Motion, Ex. 1 [#97-1] at 1. Both Motions mention both exhibits. First Motion [#96] at 2, 6; Second Motion [#97] at 2, 6. As a result, Defendant filed a Response to the First Motion only [#100] and Plaintiff filed a Reply to the First Motion only [#102]. The Court analyzes the First Motion below, treating both exhibits as if they were attached to the First Motion, and denies the Second Motion as moot. The Court has reviewed the Motions, the Response, the Reply, the entire case file, and the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the First Motion [#96] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the Second Motion [#97] is DENIED as moot.
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
A. Procedural Background
This matter was tried before a jury on May 12-15, 2014. At the conclusion of the trial the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the total economic damages Plaintiff suffered as a result of her husband's death was $2, 165, 300.00. Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order, Ex. 7 [#88-7] at 1 (Verdict Form). The jury also awarded Plaintiff $336, 000.00 in noneconomic damages. Id. The parties agreed that offsets totaling $987, 000.00 should be deducted from Plaintiff's recovery. Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment [#89] at 1-2. The net amount of the damages award was therefore $1, 514, 300.00. Minute Order [#90] at 1. On May 22, 2014, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in that amount with regard to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. See Final Judgment [#94] at 1. The Court also awarded postjudgment interest at the rate of 0.09% pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Id. at 2. In addition, Plaintiff was awarded costs in the amount of $9, 181.97. Id.; Bill of Costs [#101] at 1.
B. The First Motion
In the First Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to modify the Final Judgment and award her prejudgment interest totaling $1, 012, 651.44. First Motion [#96] at 6; Reply [#102] a 3. Defendant agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to Colo. Rev Stat. § 13-21-101(1), but argues that the total amount due to Plaintiff is $774, 088.63 Response [#100] at 3.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that a motion to amend a Final Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, must be filed within 28 days of entry of final judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b); Watson v. Dillon Companies, Inc., No. 08-cv-00091-WYD-CBS, 2013 WL 6023692, at *6 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2013). In this case, Final Judgment was entered on May 22, 2014 and ...