numbers, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Safety Technologies to verify FDA certification. A reasonable jury could conclude that reliance was justified in light of the fact that Safety Technologies attempted to verify certification but could not have been expected to succeed unless Biotronix 2000 provided the certification numbers. The evidence supports a reasonable inference favorable to the jury’s conclusion th ld be at issue, making damages fixed and certain prior to judgment. See, e.g., FDIC v. Hudson, 758 F.Supp. 663 (D.Kan.1991) (awarding prejudgment interest where plaintiff claimed that it loaned money to the defendant in reliance on misrepresentations by the defendant); Soft Water Utilities, Inc. v. LeFevre, 159 Ind.App. 529, 589, 308 N.E.2d 395 (1974) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, prejudgement interest is
holding that plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest even though its ascertainable claim was reduced by defendants unliquidated setoff or counterclaim holding that prejudgment interest was not appropriate because the plaintiffs damages were not readily ascertainable because at the time the cause of action arose a fact question remained for the court to determine when the fraud terminated holding that prejudgment interest was appropriate when plaintiffs damages from securities fraud were ascertainable at the time of the sale in accordance with accepted standards of valuation recognizing that prejudgment interest was an element of damages in a civil theft ease 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