Macheca Transport Co., et al. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins., No. 12-3941 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseIn an insurance coverage dispute between Macheca and Philadelphia, Macheca contended on appeal for a third time that damages were erroneously reduced by amounts it recovered from a separate insurance carrier, and that the district court erred in denying its request for prejudgment interest. The court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to all of Macheca's challenges on the issue of the Travelers payment because Macheca was barred from raising the issue in this appeal under the law-of-the-case doctrine; affirmed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest on the claims for lost business income and necessary expenses; and reversed the denial of prejudgment interest on the claim for property damage where the award was reasonably ascertainable.
Court Description: Civil Case - diversity. Claim that payment by separate insurer constituted a collateral source and should not have been used to reduce its overall damage award is barred under the law of the case, as the issue was decided in the first appeal and Macheca did not appeal it then. The district court did not err in denying prejudgment interest as to the damage awards for lost business income and for necessary expenses, as those damages were not reasonable ascertainable, but the district court erred in denying the prejudgment interest of the property damage award.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.