While Leyh is not directly on point, it is analogous. In cases involving allocation between actual and punitive damages, settling plaintiffs are in a better position than nonsettling defendants to insure that the settlement award is allocated between actual and punitive damages. Here, unlike in Hill, the settlement agreement released the Ellenders’ actual and punitive damages claims without allocating between them. Without an allocation, Mobil, who was not a party to the settlement, had almost no ability to prove which part of the settlement amount represented actual damages. Nonsettling parties should not be penalized for events over which they have no control. See Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word v. Dunsmoor, 832 S.W.2d 112, 117 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). When the settlement agreement does not
holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial holding that prejudgment interest is in the nature of compensatory damages and therefore should be included in judgment finally obtained holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion 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 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