Sec. 37-3a. Rate recoverable as damages. Rate on debt arising out of hospital services. (a) Except as provided in sections 37-3b, 37-3c and 52-192a, interest at the rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, may be recovered and allowed in civil actions or arbitration proceedings under chapter 909, including actions to recover money loaned at a greater rate, as damages for the detention of money after it becomes payable. Judgment may be given for the recovery of taxes assessed and paid upon the loan, and the insurance upon the estate mortgaged to secure the loan, whenever the borrower has agreed in writing to pay such taxes or insurance or both. Whenever the maker of any contract is a resident of another state or the mortgage security is located in another state, any obligee or holder of such contract, residing in this state, may lawfully recover any agreed rate of interest or damages on such contract until it is fully performed, not exceeding the legal rate of interest in the state where such contract purports to have been made or such mortgage security is located.
(b) In the case of a debt arising out of services provided at a hospital, prejudgment and postjudgment interest shall be no more than five per cent per year. The awarding of interest in such cases is discretionary.
(1972, P.A. 292, S. 1; P.A. 76-316, S. 1; P.A. 79-364, S. 2; P.A. 81-315, S. 1; P.A. 83-267, S. 1; P.A. 87-260, S. 2; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-11, S. 10, 70; P.A. 03-266, S. 7.)
History: P.A. 76-316 added exception as provided in Sec. 52-192a; P.A. 79-364 applied section to arbitration proceedings; P.A. 81-315 added reference to Sec. 37-3b as an exception to this section; P.A. 83-267 increased rate of interest from eight to 10%; P.A. 87-260 added reference to Sec. 37-3c as an exception to this section; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-11 deleted exception re recovery of interest with respect to demand obligations as provided in repealed Sec. 42a-3-122(4)(a); P.A. 03-266 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) re rate on debt arising out of hospital services.
Cited. 175 C. 138; 178 C. 323; 180 C. 11. Statute does not apply to interest payments ordered by Public Utilities Control Authority. 183 C. 128. Challenge by general contractor to constitutionality of mechanic’s lien statutes discussed. 185 C. 583. Where condemnation award contemplated payment of interest at the prevailing statutory rate, court did not err in awarding interest at 6 per cent from date of taking to October 1, 1979, when statute was amended to provide for interest at 8 per cent from that date to date of payment. 187 C. 171. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest discussed with reference to Sec. 52-192a. 192 C. 301. Determination of interest in condemnation proceedings is not subject to provisions of statute. Id., 377. Cited. 196 C. 81. Increase in interest rate only prospective in its operation. 199 C. 683. Cited. 203 C. 324; 207 C. 468; 210 C. 734; 211 C. 648; 213 C. 145; 217 C. 281; 218 C. 628; Id., 646; Id., 681; 222 C. 480; 224 C. 758; Id., 766; 228 C. 206; 234 C. 169; 235 C. 1; 238 C. 293; 239 C. 144; Id., 708; 240 C. 287; 241 C. 749. Interest payable on money wrongfully withheld calculated from date on which court determines the money was due and payable. 247 C. 242. It is within trial court’s discretion to award interest on payment withheld in good faith but unlawfully. 300 C. 205. The decision of whether to grant interest under section is primarily an equitable determination within the discretion of the trial court. 304 C. 754. Standard to determine award of interest under this section is no different from the standard under version of Sec. 37-3b in effect before 1997 amendment; interest is authorized when trial court determines, in its discretion, that considerations of fairness and equity warrant such an award; trial court misconstrued standard of section as requiring proof of wrongfulness over and above proof of the underlying legal claim. 310 C. 38.
Cited. 1 CA 595. Held not an abuse of discretion for trial court to determine that statutory 8 per cent interest rate which became effective in 1979 should be applied to money due since 1973. 2 CA 322. Cited. 3 CA 111; 6 CA 292; Id., 417; Id., 447; 12 CA 468; 13 CA 330; 16 CA 705; 18 CA 559; 20 CA 566; Id., 676; Id., 680; 21 CA 359; Id., 380; Id., 549; 22 CA 640; 25 CA 529; 27 CA 635; 29 CA 484; 30 CA 136; Id., 729; 31 CA 253; Id., 455. Inapplicable to punitive damages. 32 CA 133. Cited. 34 CA 27; 35 CA 504; 36 CA 322; 39 CA 122; 41 CA 302; 42 CA 712; 43 CA 645; 44 CA 402; Id., 490; 45 CA 543; 46 CA 37; Id., 87. Section interpreted as providing for interest to date of judgment. 56 CA 139. Prejudgment interest owed where defendant wrongfully withheld moneys owed plaintiffs at the time they were payable. 69 CA 366. Postjudgment interest awarded pursuant to section begins to run from date of judgment; where there is a rescript that modifies a judgment, postjudgment interest is to run from date of the original judgment; it should be as if the correct judgment had been issued by the original trial court, with interest running from that date. 73 CA 492. Trial court properly ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to section because plaintiff sought damages necessary to correct damage proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. 75 CA 334. Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest based on facts of case. 81 CA 213. Award of statutory prejudgment interest is contingent on the presence of two components: Claim to which the interest attaches must be for a liquidated sum of money wrongfully withheld, and trier must find that equitable considerations warrant payment of interest; prejudgment interest pursuant to section is not warranted, however, in actions for breach of contract where damages sought are similar to those in a personal injury action for negligence, where a party seeks to be made whole for a loss caused by another. Id., 419. Plaintiff’s claim for prejudgment interest resulting from tax overassessment was not based on final judgment and thus void ab initio and attempt to cure by withdrawing interest claim did not save action. 86 CA 817. Prejudgment interest is awarded in discretion of trial court to compensate the prevailing party for delay in obtaining money that rightfully belongs to him; detention of the money must be determined to have been wrongful; party seeking prejudgment interest has burden of demonstrating that retention of money is wrongful, and this requires more than demonstrating that opposing party detained money when it should not have done so; focus of the prejudgment interest award allowed by section has been to provide interest, at court’s discretion, when there is no dispute over the sum due and the liable party has, without justification, refused to pay. 99 CA 747. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying prejudgment interest. 102 CA 23. When judgment is modified, modified amount should be construed as becoming due and payable from date of original judgment. 109 CA 691. Trial court improperly determined that the parties’ stipulation did not limit the issues of interest to the law of another state and that the jury found the facts necessary for an award of interest. 110 CA 668. Trial court abused its discretion in ordering interest on money awarded in a dissolution of marriage action to accrue from date of judgment rather than from date it became payable in accordance with the court’s judgment. 111 CA 143. Section establishes a maximum rate of prejudgment interest, and therefore it was within the court’s discretion to award prejudgment interest at a rate lower than the maximum rate of 10 per cent. 112 CA 160. Award of prejudgment interest was equitable under the circumstances because party retaining money would receive unfair advantage if it were allowed to retain it while opposing party was deprived of its use and the opportunity to earn interest on it for 6 years; given the particular facts of the case, court did not abuse its discretion in awarding postjudgment interest. 121 CA 31. Section is applicable only when parties have not agreed otherwise. 131 CA 223. Prejudgment interest properly awarded where defendant was found to have wrongfully detained a security deposit and another payment of money made by plaintiff. 134 CA 731. Award of prejudgment interest under section was improper because plaintiff’s claim that defendant tortiously interfered with his business expectancies by contacting plaintiff’s new customers to get them to rehire defendant does not amount to a claim for a liquidated sum of money wrongfully withheld. 143 CA 758. Prejudgment interest was properly awarded in an action seeking damages on the basis of unjust enrichment; the proper inquiry in determining whether interest may be awarded pursuant to section is whether the claim at issue involves a wrongful detention of money after it becomes due and payable. 144 CA 808. Interest properly awarded where award is affirmed on appeal and defendant thereafter delays paying the award. 148 CA 441.
Cited. 33 CS 609; 37 CS 50; 38 CS 610; 41 CS 538; 44 CS 207.