Page:Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co.pdf/19

 134 F.3d 557, 574 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying New Jersey law). A court clearly may award prejudgment interest on tort claims, including fraud claims. New Jersey Rule 4:4211. A court also may award prejudgment interest on contract claims. , 63 F.3d 262, 284 (3d Cir. 1995) (applying New Jersey law);, 541 A.2d 1063, 1070 (N.J. 1988). "Moreover, the rule that limited prejudgment interest awards to cases where damages were liquidated or clearly ascertainable in advance has been significantly eroded." Meshinsky, 541 A.2d at 1070. Today, the purpose of an award of prejudgment interest is "to indemnify the claimant for the loss of what the moneys due him would presumably have earned if the payment had not been delayed." , 63 F.3d at 284. The primary consideration is whether defendants, rather than the plaintiff, had use of the funds in question, not whether the amount in controversy is clearly fixed.

Given the district court's factual findings and the lengthy delays caused by Defendants' willful failure to comply with discovery orders, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest. But the district court did err in applying Oklahoma rather than New Jersey law. Accordingly, we affirm the court's award of prejudgment interest, but remand for recalculation based on New Jersey Rule 4:42-11(b). ,730 A.2d at 851 (reaffirming that N.J.R. 4:42-11(b) governs the award of prejudgment interest on contract as well as tort claims). , 134 F.3d at 574 (same). -19-