This unpublished California Court of Appeal opinion, which under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 generally may not be cited or relied on by other courts or parties, is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute over payment by an employer for SCIF insurance over a single policy year. State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) issued a 2005 workers’ compensation policy to ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc., a nurse staffing company, with an estimated premium of $250,000 that ReadyLink paid up front. After the policy year closed, SCIF audited ReadyLink’s payroll and other records to set the final premium retroactively, with any difference to be settled by an additional payment or a refund.
The dispute centered on per diem payments to ReadyLink’s nurses, which were generated by proprietary software and which ReadyLink did not require nurses to document. Counting those payments as compensation produced an additional premium of $555,327.53. As the Court of Appeal recounted in an earlier published opinion, the Insurance Commissioner approved SCIF’s application of the relevant regulation, and ReadyLink’s writ challenge to that decision failed. SCIF then sued for breach of contract in Riverside County Superior Court to collect the additional premium.
The trial court first granted SCIF judgment on the pleadings, but the Court of Appeal reversed in State Comp. Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422. At the jury trial on remand, SCIF presented a premium collection specialist and a certified public accountant to support the $555,327.53 figure. ReadyLink did not rebut them, stipulated that the invoice arithmetic was correct, and relied on a waiver defense. The jury rejected waiver but nonetheless found that ReadyLink owed no additional premium. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the full $555,327.53, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in the unpublished opinion of State Compensation Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare (May 8, 2026, D083359).
While ReadyLink’s appeal from that judgment was pending, SCIF moved for prejudgment interest under Civil Code § 3287. SCIF asked for $907,998.38 under subdivision (a), measured from 30 days after it invoiced ReadyLink through the date of judgment. In the alternative, it proposed $912,562.71 under subdivision (a) measured from the invoice date, or $493,404.61 under subdivision (b) measured from the filing of the action. After oral argument, the Riverside County Superior Court (Judge Kira L. Klatchko) awarded the $907,998.38. ReadyLink appealed, without disputing SCIF’s math.
In the unpublished case of State Compensation Insurance Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc., No. D086046 (November 2026), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the postjudgment order awarding SCIF $907,998.38 in prejudgment interest.
The panel started with the two parts of section 3287. Subdivision (a) provides for nondiscretionary interest on liquidated damages, while subdivision (b) gives courts discretion over interest on unliquidated contract damages, as explained in Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 506. Reviewing the subdivision (a) award de novo under KGM Harvesting Co. v. Fresh Network (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 376, the court noted that the provision “requires both certainty and vesting,” quoting International Currency Technologies v. ICT, Inc. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 639. That test compensates plaintiffs for the lost use of their money, and it protects defendants by limiting mandatory interest to cases where the amount owed is certain, drawing on Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 279.
The court found both requirements met. The damages were certain because the amount came from ReadyLink’s own payroll records, two witnesses corroborated it without being impeached or rebutted, and ReadyLink’s counsel conceded at trial that he would not dispute the calculation. The damages vested on the day SCIF’s properly calculated invoice had remained unpaid for 30 days, so interest ran from that day and the award was mandatory.
ReadyLink argued that SCIF was not obligated to collect the premium, could have enforced its position only prospectively, and offered no evidence that it needed the money. The panel found these points indistinguishable from those it had already rejected as irrelevant to damages in its May 2026 opinion, which it could cite as law of the case under rule 8.1115(b)(1). That opinion reasoned that a promisee is injured by a breach even if it can get by without the money: “If it received less than what it bargained for, it is harmed.”
Two further arguments failed in footnotes. Having to prove the amount at trial did not make it uncertain, the court said, because damage and its amount are elements of every breach of contract action. ReadyLink also contended at oral argument that the disputed per diem inputs made the damages uncertain, but its reply brief acknowledged it never disputed that the invoice arithmetic was calculable, and the court noted an administrative law judge’s conclusion that ReadyLink did not require nurses to document per diem expenses.
Finally, ReadyLink asked the court to shorten the interest period under subdivision (b) by excluding the time before SCIF filed suit and the time its appeal of the pretrial judgment was pending. Because subdivision (b) applies only to unliquidated damages and these damages were liquidated, the trial court had no discretion to shorten the period.