Scholmer ex rel. Bye v. Perina

I would conclude that (1) the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict finding a loss of a larger settlement; (2) public policy does not bar the claim; and (3) a legal malpractice verdict does not provide an exception to the general rule that pre-verdict interest is not allowed in this state; the award for loss of use of a settlement amounts to prohibited pre-verdict interest.

*897SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND EVIDEN-TIARY RULINGS

Perina does not directly challenge the jury's finding that his inaction was a form of negligence; rather, he argues that the evidence failed to prove that his…