{"id":905396,"date":"2026-02-25T15:16:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-25T22:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905396"},"modified":"2026-02-25T15:16:02","modified_gmt":"2026-02-25T22:16:02","slug":"postjudgment-interest-when-does-it-begin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/postjudgment-interest-when-does-it-begin\/","title":{"rendered":"When Does Postjudgment Interest Begin? Seventh Circuit Clarifies In Major Punitive Damages Dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Michael Haeberle | Patterson Law Firm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent Seventh Circuit decision provides critical clarity on the accrual of postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961, particularly regarding punitive damages in high-stakes commercial litigation.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Postjudgment interest<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0is a critical\u2014and often overlooked\u2014component of damage awards. It can quietly accrue into substantial sums while parties litigate appeals or post-trial motions. A recent decision by the\u00a0Seventh Circuit<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0reinforces that timing matters\u2014and that clarity at the initial judgment stage can lock in the accrual of postjudgment interest<\/a>, even if later modifications reduce the total amount of the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Law and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961: Defining the Accrual Date<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In a long-running\u00a0trade secrets<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0dispute, a federal jury awarded nearly $1 billion in damages\u2014split between compensatory and\u00a0punitive damages<\/a><\/strong>. After multiple appeals, the final damages were significantly reduced. However, a legal fight ensued not over the damages themselves, but when postjudgment interest began to run on the punitive portion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defendant argued that interest on the punitive damages should only begin from the later judgment entered in 2022, not from the original 2017 judgment. The trial court agreed. But the Seventh Circuit<\/strong> reversed, holding that the interest should accrue from 2017 because the final punitive amount was clearly ascertainable at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court relied on\u00a028 U.S.C. \u00a7 1961(a)<\/a><\/strong>, which directs that postjudgment interest begins from \u201cthe date of the entry of the judgment.\u201d The biggest part of the dispute turned on what qualifies as a final, ascertainable award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why “Ascertainable” Damages Lock in Postjudgment Interest<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

It is important to highlight:<\/p>\n\n\n\n