[which were not ascertainable on the date of judicial demand] ... be deemed to become due only at the time that those costs were incurred.”) Attempting to distinguish these cases, Tate & Lyle argues that this is a tort suit in which Continental was joined as a direct defendant; thus, interest |49on an award against Continental is due from the date of judicial demand. See Edwards v. Daugherty, 03-2103, pp. 23-24 (La.10/1/04), 883 So.2d 932, 947 (stating that “[a]ll liability carriers owe interest on judgments in tort cases ... from the date of judicial demand.”) This argument, as Continental contends, overlooks that the present dispute is solely a contractual dispute between Tate & Lyle and Continental. See Corbello v. Iowa Production, 02-0826, p. 29 (La.2/25/03), 850 So.2d 686, 706 (<HOLDING>) For these reasons, we modify the award of
holding that unlike judgments in ex delicto actions wherein judicial interest attaches from judicial demand interest is recoverable on debts arising ex contractu from the time they become due unless otherwise stipulated holding that the new york usury laws do not apply to interest charged on past due debts recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction holding that a states great interest in maintaining access to the great lakes was a special sovereignty interest that precluded an ex parte young suit holding that a judgment lien attaches to a vendors interest in an executory land contract