Martin v. Roy Bros. Oil Co.

Massachusetts Superior Court

Martin v. Roy Bros. Oil Co.

10 Mass. L. Rptr. 482

CourtMassachusetts Superior Court

DecidedAugust 24, 1999

DocketNo. 961948A

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Mass. L. Rptr. 482 (Martin v. Roy Bros. Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Roy Bros. Oil Co., 10 Mass. L. Rptr. 482 (Mass. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Donohue, J.

This matter came before the Court for hearing on August 13, 1999. The plaintiff filed and argued a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator’s Finding of December 21, 1998. The defendants opposed this motion on the grounds that the plaintiff sought an assessment of prejudgment interest and costs on the amount of the Arbitrator’s Findings.

The defendants assert that G.L.c. 235, §8 and G.L.c. 231, §6B, read together, evidence the legislative intent to add prejudgment interest in any action where money damages are awarded. The courts have established, however, that “(i]n the absence of an explicit agreement to the contrary, pre-award damage claims, including interest, to have been submitted to arbitration.” Reilly v. Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 412 Mass. 1006, 1007 (1992) (quoting Sansone v. Metro[483]*483politan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 660, 662-63 (1991)). Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court specifically has held that G.L.c. 235, §8, the section addressing interest on judgments, does not apply to arbitrators’ awards. See Glenn Acres, Inc. v. Cliffwood Corp., 353 Mass. 150, 156 (1967).

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to confirm the arbitrator’s finding with regard to the application of interest and costs on the amount awarded by the arbitrator is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Donohue, J.

This matter came before the Court for hearing on August 13, 1999. The plaintiff filed and argued a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator’s Finding of December 21, 1998. The defendants opposed this motion on the grounds that the plaintiff sought an assessment of prejudgment interest and costs on the amount of the Arbitrator’s Findings.

The defendants assert that G.L.c. 235, §8 and G.L.c. 231, §6B, read together, evidence the legislative intent to add prejudgment interest in any action where money damages are awarded. The courts have established, however, that “(i]n the absence of an explicit agreement to the contrary, pre-award damage claims, including interest, to have been submitted to arbitration.” Reilly v. Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 412 Mass. 1006, 1007 (1992) (quoting Sansone v. Metro[483]*483politan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 660, 662-63 (1991)). Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court specifically has held that G.L.c. 235, §8, the section addressing interest on judgments, does not apply to arbitrators’ awards. See Glenn Acres, Inc. v. Cliffwood Corp., 353 Mass. 150, 156 (1967).

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to confirm the arbitrator’s finding with regard to the application of interest and costs on the amount awarded by the arbitrator is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Mass. L. Rptr. 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-roy-bros-oil-co-masssuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack