Court reviews whether the trial court properly dismissed an uninsured motorist claim

SHAVON HURT v. JOHN DOE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 17, 2012)

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action arising out of a pedestrian-vehicle collision, naming as defendant the owner of the car that allegedly struck the plaintiff. After discovery, plaintiff amended the complaint to add "John Doe/Jane Doe" as a defendant and served process on her uninsured motorist carrier. Plaintiff subsequently settled with the named defendant and dismissed the action against that defendant; the uninsured motorist insurance carrier then filed a motion to dismiss the uninsured motorist claim. The trial court granted the motion, holding that, in light of the settlement, the uninsured motorist claim no longer existed and dismissed the case. We find that the court erred in dismissing the case.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/hurts_011712.pdf

Court reviews the allocation of fault in a case involving a mechanical bull accident

CHADWICK DAVID DORMAN MOYER v. NASHVILLE MIDNIGHT OIL, LLC, D/B/A CADILLAC RANCH (Tenn. Ct. App. January 12, 2012)

Plaintiff sued to recover for injuries sustained while riding a mechanical bull in a bar owned by Defendant. Defendant appeals the trial court's determination that it was 100% at fault and resulting judgment for plaintiff. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings, we affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/moyerc_011212.pdf

Court reviews whether a contractor can be held liable for injuries incurred in a car accident

JOSHUA N. LEE, v. LYONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 10, 2012)

Plaintiff and others sustained injuries in a single car accident and sued defendant construction company and the Tennessee Department of Transportation, alleging that defendant construction company had recently completed work on that section of the highway where the accident occurred, and that a low point in the pavement caused plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle and wreck. Defendant answered, stating that they had completed the required construction on that section of the highway, and the State had accepted its work pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 12-4-501 et seq. which provides upon proper completion of the work the contractor "is discharged from all liability to any party". Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court granted and plaintiff appealed. We hold that summary judgment for the defendant in this case was proper, and affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/leej_011012.pdf

Court reviews the liability of an assisted living facility's management company

RHEAETTA F. WILSON ET AL. v. AMERICARE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. January 6, 2012)

Decedent's next of kin filed this wrongful death action against an assisted living facility, two nurses, and the facility's management company for failure to provide proper care and treatment. This appeal concerns only the jury verdict and judgment finding the management company directly liable for failure to provide adequate staff at the assisted living facility. We find no material evidence to support a conclusion that any staffing deficiency proximately caused the decedent's death. We therefore reverse the judgment finding direct liability on the part of the management company.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/wilsonr_010612.pdf

Court reviews a penalty issued by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION (Tenn. Ct. App. January 4, 2011)

This action was filed pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322, for contested cases. The petitioner challenges a penalty assessed by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers' Compensation. The stated reason for the penalty was the failure to file Form C-20, Tennessee Employer's First Report of Work Injury, regarding eighteen injuries that occurred in January and February 2003 which were medical only injuries, meaning no disability benefits were owing. The trial court affirmed the penalty.

We find the petitioner was not afforded proper notice of the Department's basis for issuing the penalty in violation of the petitioner's due process rights under the UAPA, Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-307. We also find that the Department exceeded its authority by changing its "interpretation" of Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0800-2-1-.06, a rule that was unambiguous and, thus, not subject to interpretation. The trial court's holding is reversed, and this matter is remanded with instructions to vacate the penalty assessed against the petitioner.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/libertymutual_010411.pdf

TN Supreme Court reviews whether the statute of limitations bars negligence and strict liability claims in a products liability case

MICHAEL LIND v. BEAMAN DODGE, INC., d/b/a BEAMAN DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP ET AL. (Tenn. December 15, 2011)

The plaintiff, who had purchased a truck from an automobile dealership, filed a products liability suit in 2007 against not only the manufacturer, but also the dealership, as seller. Later, the plaintiff entered a voluntary nonsuit as to the seller and proceeded only against the manufacturer.

Over one year after the order granting nonsuit, the manufacturer declared bankruptcy, and, in 2009, the plaintiff again sued the seller, alleging both negligence and strict liability in tort. The seller filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion but granted an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal.

This Court granted the seller's application for permission to appeal to consider the application of the saving statute to these unique circumstances. We hold that the plaintiff may proceed under the strict liability claim because that cause of action did not accrue until the manufacturer was judicially declared insolvent. Because, however, the second suit alleged acts of negligence on the part of the seller, an exception to the statutory rule prohibiting products liability suits against sellers, and could have been brought in 2007, the statute of limitations is a bar to recovery under that theory. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for trial.

Majority opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/lindm_121511.pdf

Justice Clark's concurring opinion is available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/lindm_CON_121511.pdf

Tennessee Supreme Court reviews whether the trial court properly excluded an expert's hearsay evidence in a premises liability case

JAMES Q. HOLDER ET AL. v. WESTGATE RESORTS LTD. (Tenn. December 12, 2011)

During a trial of the plaintiffs' premises liability claim, the trial court excluded as hearsay a portion of the testimony of the defendant's expert. The expert would have testified that he consulted an authoritative source whose interpretation of the applicable building code was consistent with that of the testifying expert. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred because the expert's testimony was admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's error was harmless, however, and affirmed the judgment.

We hold that the Court of Appeals improperly applied an amended version of Rule 703 that was not in effect at the time of trial. We hold that the trial court properly excluded as hearsay portions of the proffered testimony of the testifying expert. We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/holderj_121211.pdf

Court reviews whether plaintiff properly alleged his breach of contract, misrepresentation, and TN Consumer Act violation claims

JAMES WATRY v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CAUSALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION (Tenn. Ct. App. December 29, 2011)

Insured was injured by an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. Insured filed a claim with Insurer seeking uninsured motorist coverage benefits and settled for an amount that was less than his actual damages. Insured then sued Insurer seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Act. Insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which the trial court granted. We affirm the trial court's judgment because Insured failed to allege sufficient facts to support any of his causes of action.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/watry_122911.pdf

Court reviews whether the city of Murfreesboro had notice of unsafe road conditions based on records of previous accidents

JENNIFER BIVINS, as next of kin and natural parent of BRANDON BIVINS, deceased v. CITY OF MURFREESBORO (Tenn. Ct. App. December 29, 2011)

Plaintiff filed an action against the City of Murfreesboro pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, claiming a dangerous and unsafe roadway caused an automobile accident in which her son was killed. The trial court determined the City had no notice of an unsafe or dangerous condition, and entered judgment in favor of the City.

Upon appeal, we reversed on the issue of notice, holding that previous accidents on adjacent areas of the roadway provided sufficient notice to the City of a potentially dangerous condition. Upon remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and assessed 60% fault to the City. We vacate and remand for further findings consistent with Rule 52 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bivinsj_122911.pdf

Court reviews whether trial court properly excluded expert testimony based on the locality rule in a medical malpractice case

TISH WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LISA JO ABBOTT v. DR. SHANT GARABEDIAN (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2011)

This appeal concerns the application of the locality rule in a medical malpractice case. The trial court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff's medical expert, based on the locality rule. On this basis, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant physician. The plaintiff appeals. We vacate the order excluding the testimony of the plaintiff's expert and the grant of summary judgment, and remand for reconsideration in light of the Tennessee Supreme Court's recent decision Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011).

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/walkert_122811.pdf

Court reviews a defamation case that occurred following a dispute about parenting

GEOFFREY TODD KRASNER v. JOHN ARNOLD (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2011)

This appeal involves claims of defamation. After words were exchanged in the course of a parenting dispute, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant father of the plaintiff's girlfriend's daughter. A bench trial was held in which both parties were self-represented. The trial court held in favor of the defendant father. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/krasnerg_122811.pdf

Court reviews whether a construction company can be held liable to a driver who had an accident on a road on which the company performed work

JOSHUA N. LEE, v. LYONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 20, 2011)

Plaintiff and others sustained injuries in a single car accident and sued defendant construction company and the Tennessee Department of Transportation, alleging that defendant construction company had recently completed work on that section of the highway where the accident occurred, and that a low point in the pavement caused plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle and wreck.

Defendant answered, stating that they had completed the required construction on that section of the highway, and the State had accepted its work pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 12-4-501 et seq. which provides upon proper completion of the work the contractor "is discharged from all liability to any party". Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court granted and plaintiff appealed. We hold that summary judgment for the defendant in this case was proper, and affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/leej_122011.pdf

Court reviews whether an employee's hernias were compensable injuries

ANITA BERKLEY RHODES v. CAREALL, INC. ET AL. (TWCA December 20, 2011)

An employee alleged that she sustained a right- and left-side hernia while working. Her employer denied the claim for the left-side hernia. The trial court held that both the right- and left-side hernias were compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. The employer appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/rhodesa_122011.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an impairment rating should be applied to the hand or limited to the index finger in a case involving a partial amputation

JAMES TERRY JOHNSON v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INC. D/B/A AT&T, INC. (TWCA December 20, 2011)

An employee suffered a partial amputation of his left index finger. Compensability of the injury was not contested. At trial, the employee argued that his disability award should be apportioned to the hand. His employer contended that the award should be limited to the index finger. The trial court agreed with the employee and awarded 52% permanent partial disability to the hand. The employer appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/johnsonj_122011.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee who was fired had a meaningful return to work after receiving surgical treatment for an injury

MELISSA HAMLIN v. WINDSOR FORESTRY TOOLS, INC. ET AL. (TWCA December 20, 2011)

The employee injured her back at work and the injury required surgical treatment. The employee returned to work but was later terminated for violation of her employer's attendance and absenteeism policy. The trial court found the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. The trial court, however, adopted the impairment rating that the employee's evaluating physician expressed and awarded 90% permanent partial disability benefits, the maximum award permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d).

The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by adopting the evaluating physician's impairment rating, by its use of the six-times multiplier on the basis of facts not in evidence, and by finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. We agree that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings concerning employee's impairment and the six-times multiplier. Accordingly, we modify the award.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/hamlinm_122011.pdf

Court reviews a claim for uninsured motorist benefits

REYNALDO COLLAZO ET AL. v. JOE HAAS D/B/A HAAS CONSTRUCTION ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 16, 2011)

This is an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits following a motor vehicle collision involving the plaintiff and another vehicle. The driver of the defendant vehicle left the scene and has not been identified. The owner of the vehicle was subsequently identified, but denied knowing the identity of the driver and claimed no one had permission to operate the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The named defendants in this action are the owner of the vehicle and John Doe, the unknown driver. Plaintiffs' uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance Co., is an unnamed defendant. The defendant owner has liability insurance coverage through State Farm Insurance Co.

The plaintiffs settled all claims against the defendant-owner and State Farm for $90,000, $10,000 less than the uninsured motorist limits with Nationwide. Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued to pursue their claims against Nationwide for uninsured motorist benefits, insisting the settlement with the owner of the vehicle did not bar their claims against the uninsured John Doe driver. Upon motion for summary judgment by Nationwide, the trial court found that because the owner of the vehicle had $100,000 of liability insurance, there was not an "uninsured motor vehicle." Based on this finding, the trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs' uninsured motorist claim against Nationwide. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/collazor_121611.pdf

Court reviews whether plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor, and an award for punitive damages

JEFFREY L. DILLON v. NICA, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 15, 2011)

After his claim for insurance benefits for an injury sustained while making a delivery was denied, plaintiff filed suit against the delivery company, the company providing the insurance coverage and its president, and the third party administrator of the insurance plan, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The jury found the company providing the insurance and its president liable for violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

On appeal, the insurance company and president contend that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was an employee of delivery company rather than an independent contractor, in excluding various exhibits and testimony, in denying the president's motion for a directed verdict, and in awarding punitive damages. Because the punitive damage awarded was predicated on the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, which does not authorize an award of punitive damages, the award of punitive damages is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether an award of treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act should be awarded. In all other respects, the judgment and rulings are affirmed.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/dillonj_121511.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee had a meaningful return to work that would permit limiting his benefits following being fired for misconduct

DEWEY GIBSON, JR. v. HIDDEN MOUNTAIN RESORT, INC. (TWCA December 14, 2011)

The employee sought workers' compensation for a back injury which arose out of and in the scope of his employment with the employer. The trial court found that because the employee had a meaningful return to work and was subsequently dismissed for job misconduct, he was limited to benefits of 1.5 times the 20% anatomical impairment rating. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's factual findings; the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/gibsond_121411.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee's intoxication was the proximate cause of injuries he incurred at his job site

DANIEL BOYD DAVIDSON v. BUSINESS PERSONNEL SOLUTIONS (TWCA December 14, 2011)

The employee, who sustained injuries while removing tree limbs at a job site, filed a claim for workers' compensation. The employer denied benefits, contending that the injury was the result of the employee's intoxication and misconduct. While concluding that the employee was not guilty of willful misconduct, the trial court ruled that his intoxication was a proximate cause of the injuries and, therefore, denied the claim.

The employee appealed, alleging that the trial court erred by finding that he was intoxicated at the time of his injuries and that the intoxication was the proximate cause. This appeal was referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the employee was intoxicated and his intoxication proximately caused his injuries, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/davidsond_121411.pdf

TWCA reviews whether an employee's injury occurred during the course of his employment

ROBERT BRIGHT v. SHOUN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. (TWCA December 7, 2011)

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The employee, a truck driver, filed suit for benefits, alleging that he developed bilateral rotator cuff tears and carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his job responsibilities. His employer contended that his injuries were not related to his employment. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found in favor of the employee and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole.

The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings (1) that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, and (2) that five times the medical impairment was appropriate under the circumstances. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial judge, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/brightr_120711.pdf