In Ruff v. Weintraub, 105 N.J. 233, 519 A.2d 1384 (1987), the Court said: "the applicability of a compensation rationale for prejudgment interest may be questionable in the case of future losses, since it can be argued that those damages accrue after the judgment." 105 N.J. at 245, 519 A.2d 1384. The Court nevertheless found that "encouraging settlements is an adequate independent basis for the application of the prejudgment interest rule in this case." Id. The Court at footnote 6 in Ruff referred the matter to the Civil Practice Committee, citing Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 103 S. Ct. 2541, 76 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1983). There the United States Supreme Court suggested that prejudgment interest on a stream of earnings would be appropriate if those earnings were discounted back to the date of injury rather than the date of judgment. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 462 U.S. at 538 n. 22, 103 S. Ct. at 2551 n. 22, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 784 n. 22. The Supreme Court in Ruff concluded that the imposition of prejudgment interest on future losses was justified by its value as an incentive "to encourage settlement." 105 N.J. at 245, 519 A.2d 1384. The Supreme Court in Ruff left open the possibility that "exceptional circumstances," as provided by R. 4:42-11(b), might warrant suspension of prejudgment interest.