With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". figure by calculating the amount that MN Supply would have earned had it invested the profits it lost from 1997 to 2002 at an eighteen percent rate of return. Trial Tr. at 809-10. It appears to us that this figure therefore represents “prejudgment interest” under Minnesota law. See ZumBerge v. N. States Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 103, 110 (Minn.Ct.App.1992) (interpreting expert’s “calculation of the time value of the losses, i.e., what the ZumBerges would have accrued in interest if they would have put the loss amount in the bank each year earning 10% interest” as “prejudgment interest” such that expert’s calculation should not have been considered by the jury); Security Prot. Servs., Ltd. v. Evenson, Nos. C4-92-556, C8-92-561, C6-92-1336, 1993 WL 14338, *3 (Minn.Ct.App. Jan.26, 1993) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the District Court correctly

A: holding that experts calculation of amount which plaintiff would have earned had it invested all of the money that it sought as damages was evidence of prejudgment interest that should not have been considered by the jury
B: holding that regardless of insurers good faith denial of coverage plaintiff is entitled to recover interest to put it in position it would have been in if coverage had not been denied
C: holding that reinstatement was insufficient to remedy a wrongful suspension and that back pay must be awarded as the amount he would have received had he been retained in his job during that period less any amount he might have earned elsewhere
D: holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed
A.