COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS. 72760 & 72761 BALBINO RIVERA, ET AL., : ACCELERATED : Plaintiffs-Appellants : Cross-Appellees : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND vs. : OPINION : JOSEPH S. HART, ET AL., : : PER CURIAM Defendants-Appellees : Cross-Appellants : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : DECEMBER 11, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeals from : Common Pleas Court : Case Nos. 306121 and : 305588 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant/ Philip A. Marnecheck cross-appellee, Bambino 1835 Midland Building Rivera: 101 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For plaintiff-appellant/ William S. Jacobson cross-appellee, Andrew NURENBERG, PLEVIN, HELLER & Niebuhr: McCARTHY CO., L.P.A. 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee/ Jay S. Hanson cross-appellant, Joseph 918 Terminal Tower Hart: 50 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee/ Fredric E. Kramer cross-appellant, Allstate McNEAL, SCHICK, ARCHIBALD & Insurance Company: BIRO CO., L.P.A. 700 Skylight Office Tower 1660 W. Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454 For defendant-appellee/ A. Deane Buchanan cross-appellant, Personal HARDIMAN, BUCHANAN, HOWLAND & Physician Care: TRIVERS 1025 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For defendant-appellee/ David J. Fagnilli cross-appellant, Progressive DAVIS & YOUNG Preferred Insurance Co.: 1700 Midland Building 101 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For Ohio Department of Robert J. Byrne Human Services: Assistant Attorney General Revenue Recovery, 2nd Floor 101 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-5148 3 PER CURIAM: The trial court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that defendants were not required to pay prejudgment interest on the interpleaded insurance funds. Prejudgment interest on interpleaded funds has been determined to not be based on tortious conduct, but to more closely resemble a contract dispute. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baumgardner (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 749, 752. When pursuing a claim of prejudgment interest under a contract claim, the proper avenue is R.C. 1343.03(A). Royal Electric Construction v. OSU (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 110, 115. It follows, that R.C. 1343.03(C) is not applicable in this situation because a claim for prejudgment interest by a plaintiff on interpleaded funds of an insurance company lies under contract. Furthermore, in determining who is liable for the award of prejudgment interest, the tortfeasor or the insurer, the courts must look at the terms of the policy. Lovewell v. Physicians Insurance Co. Of Ohio (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 143, 679 N.E.2d 1119, 1121. UnderR.C. 1343.03(A), prejudgment interest may only be calculated from the time the action becomes due and payable. Royal Electric at 115. Relying on Royal Electric, a breach of contract case applying R.C. 1343.03(A), and Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 638, 658, which discusses the derivation of the common law right to prejudgment interest, plaintiffs mistakenly claim that R.C. 1343.03(A) provides for an award of prejudgment interest as compensation to the plaintiffs in tort claims after 4 funds have been interpleaded by an insurance company. They also maintain that this prejudgment interest should be calculated from the accrual of the claim to the time of judgment. This assignment of error is not well taken because their claim has not become due and payable. In order for the plaintiffs' claim against the insurer to accrue, they must establish a contractual relationship with the insurer. According to the terms of the insurance policy, this relationship arises when plaintiffs obtain a judgment against the insured. Since plaintiffs have yet to obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, a contractual relationship does not exist and no prejudgment interest may accrue. As a result, the trial court's decision to deny prejudgment interest was sound, and the appellants' assignment of error is overruled. Defendant Progressive Preferred Insurance Co.'s assignment of error concerning the modified order of the trial court placing the deposit of the interpleaded funds with plaintiffs' attorneys is without merit. Pursuant to Civ.R. 22, [t]he court may make an order for the safekeeping, payment or disposition of such sum. This modified order by the trial court was well within its right. Judgment affirmed. 5 It is ordered that defendants-appellees/cross-appellants recover of plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees their costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .