In a personal injury jury trial, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of two litigation loans taken post-accident to cover medical, rehabilitation, and living expenses.
The defendants objected, arguing the loans were not recoverable as damages due to remoteness and foreseeability, and that pre-judgment interest already compensated for loss of use of money.
The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that neither the principal nor interest on litigation loans are recoverable as damages, as they are too remote and not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the accident.
Public policy considerations, including the existence of statutory pre-judgment interest and the potential for encouraging high-interest loans, also weighed against admissibility.
