In Scibelli v. Pannunzio, Mahoning App. No. 05 MA 150, 2006 Ohio 5652, the Seventh District rejected the same argument advanced by Pro Assurance and adopted by the Eighth District in Barnes. Id. at P143. The Scibelli court found more persuasive the plaintiff's assertion "that since prejudgment interest started on the date the cause of action accrued, use of a statute different than the one existing on that date would constitute a retroactive application in a pending case." Id. at P141. Pro Assurance also has overlooked Conway v. Dravenstott, Crawford App. No. 3-07-05, 2007 Ohio 4933, which was decided shortly before Pro Assurance filed its reply brief. In Conway, the Third District followed Scibelli and held that the pre-amendment version of R.C. 1343.03(C) applied, in an action pending on the effective date of the amendments, to determine the accrual date for prejudgment interest and whether prejudgment interest could be awarded on future damages. Id. at fn. 3 and P15.