the HCAA's $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages and the one million dollar limit on total damages. Here, although Rothenberg contended the trial court was required to apply the prefiling interest limitation to the judgment, the trial court denied the motion and made no findings regarding prefiling interest. Under the one million dollar limitation, the Wallbanks may not recover additional amounts for prefiling interest. See § 18-64-302(2). Similarly, if the trial court finds good cause and unfairness justifying the award for lost future earnings, then prefiling interest also may not be awarded for that portion of the judgment that exceeds one million dollars, because prefiling interest is included in the total limit. Cf. Scholz v. Metro. Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901 (Colo.1993)(<HOLDING>); Shannon v. Colo. Sch. of Mines, 847 P.2d 210
holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that one need not know full extent of ones damages before limitation period begins to run as statute of limitations can be triggered at some time before full extent of damages is sustained holding that prejudgment interest is based on the amount of the judgment not the total amount of damages awarded by the jury because nonsettling defendants have no control over settlement negotiations and should not be forced to pay prejudgment interest on settling defendants parts of a damages award holding before enactment of  13648022 that prefiling interest was not subject to one million dollar total damages limitation in the hcaa holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict