David, J.
….
On cross-appeal, plaintiff’s counsel challenges the trial court’s refusal to grant prejudgment interest. At issue is the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute (TPIS). Ind. Code § 34-51-4. An award of prejudgment interest is discretionary; accordingly, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for prejudgment interest for abuse of discretion. Hupfer v. Miller, 890 N.E.2d 7, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1045 (Ind. 2011).
…..
There are two lines of analysis at play in this case. The first is whether this letter met the requirements of Indiana Code section 34-51-4-6. The second is whether prejudgment interest must be awarded if the statutory requirements are met.
Laney’s original complaint was filed November 26, 2002 and her settlement letter to Dr. Wisner was written on April 6, 2005. She then dismissed her suit in 2006, only to file it again on August 6, 2007. Laney argues we should not take into consideration the original complaint from 2002 in determining the timeliness of the letter because the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and thus we should act as if the 2002 suit had never been brought at all. By doing this, plaintiff contends the letter of April 6, 2005 properly predated the subsequent lawsuit of 2007. This appears to be one way to attempt to bypass a failure to follow the prejudgment interest statute—dismiss the suit without prejudice, prepare a settlement letter, and file suit anew.
In order to seek prejudgment interest, Indiana Code section 34-51-4-6(1) requires a party to make their written settlement offer within one year of a claim being filed. The trial court determined “within one year” meant the settlement offer could not be made until the claim was filed and that it must be made within one year thereafter. In other words, the trial court found a starting line existed with the filing of a claim and ended one year later at the deadline. We disagree with the trial court’s analysis and instead we agree with the Court of Appeals analysis that the one-year requirement “defin[es] the deadline for the submission” of a settlement offer,
Not . . . whether the settlement offer may be filed before or after the filing of a claim. In other words, the written offer of settlement may be submitted to the defendants before or after the filing of suit, but . . . it may not be submitted later than one year after the filing of suit.
Wisner v. Laney, 953 N.E.2d 100, 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Thus the Court of Appeals held there was no starting line, only a deadline, which was one year after the filing of a claim. If the statute is to be interpreted otherwise, it would serve to discourage settlement of lawsuits before a lawsuit is filed. Certainly the legislature did not intend to limit the effective use of the TPIS and settlement negotiations.
This position is further supported by the statute addressing when prejudgment interest begins to accrue. Under Indiana Code section 34-51-4-8(a), prejudgment interest may not exceed forty-eight months and “begins to accrue on the latest of the following dates:
(1) Fifteen (15) months after the cause of action accrues;
(2) Six (6) months after the claim is filed in court if IC 34-18-8 and IC 34-18-9 do not apply;
(3) One hundred eighty (180) days after a medical review panel is formed to review the claim under IC 34-18-10 (or IC 27-12-10 before its repeal).
Ind. Code § 34-51-4-8(a).
If subsection (3) permits prejudgment interest to begin accruing 180 days after the review panel is formed, regardless of the date a complaint is filed in court, then Indiana Code section 34-51-4-8 permits prejudgment interest to accrue before the filing of a complaint.
Thus, we hold today that a written settlement offer must be made within one year following the filing of a claim [FN 4: Indiana Code section 34-51-4-6 also allows for a longer period of time than one year if the trial court determines it necessary and upon a showing of good cause.] to be eligible for prejudgment interest. However, a settlement offer can also be made prior to the filing of a lawsuit. We believe this interpretation is broader and more in line with the legislature’s intent to facilitate and encourage settlement of claims amicably without legal recourse, but also to give real meaning and effect to the prejudgment interest statute. The trial court’s interpretation would potentially foreclose meaningful settlement talks until the filing of a complaint.
….
Finally, had the settlement letter been timely sent, we note Laney is not automatically entitled to prejudgment interest. TPIS permits the trial court to award prejudgment interest, but does not require an award of prejudgment interest. See Ind. Code § 34-51-4-7 (“The court may award prejudgment interest as part of a judgment.”); Id. § 34-51-4-8 (“If the court awards prejudgment interest, the court shall determine the period during which prejudgment interest accrues.”) (emphasis added). Thus, an award of prejudgment interest is committed solely to the discretion of the trial court if the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. This is consistent with the TPIS serving as a tool for the trial court to encourage settlement and incentivize the expeditious resolution to cases.
….
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.