CH-00-1635-3 CH-00-1635-3
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Health Cost Controls vs. Ronald Gifford W2001-02267-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan
This is an insurance case on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court has directed us "to reconsider the case on its merits in accordance with . . . York v. Sevier County Ambulance Auth., 8 S.W.3d 616 (Tenn. 1999)," which was decided after the appellate briefs were filed in the initial appeal. In York, the Supreme Court established that the "made whole" doctrine, applicable in cases involving an insurer's subrogation rights, is also applicable in cases involving an insurer's right to reimbursement for amounts paid to the insured from another source. After careful consideration, we find that York does not affect our original disposition of this case, and, therefore, on remand, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Weakley
Court of Appeals
Wright Medical Tech. vs. Bernard Grisoni & Biogeneration Inc. W2000-01302-COA-R7-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This case involves the alleged use of confidential information by an ex-employee. The defendant employee worked for the plaintiff employer developing a medical product. The employee signed an agreement prohibiting the use of confidential information after his employment ended, but did not sign a non-competition agreement. The employee was terminated and thereafter began manufacturing a competing medical product. The plaintiff employer sued and obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting the ex-employee from manufacturing the product. The trial court later dissolved the injunction. Subsequently, it found the defendant employer liable for malicious prosecution and punitive damages, awarding damages of over $9 million. The employer appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part and modify. We reverse the finding of malicious prosecution, holding that the evidence is insufficient to establish malice or lack of probable cause. We also reverse the award of punitive damages. We affirm the trial court's dissolution of the injunction against the former employee, and find that the compensatory damages are limited by the amount of the injunction bond. Consequently, the award of compensatory damages is modified to this amount.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Tn Farmers Mutual vs. Ford Motor W2001-00046-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
This is a consolidated appeal of three products liability cases. Three vehicles manufactured by the defendant automobile company were destroyed by spontaneous combustion, allegedly caused by a defective steering column. No personal injuries resulted from the fires, and no other property was damaged. The plaintiff insurance company, which insured the cars, paid the owners the value of the vehicles. The insurance company, as subrogee for the insureds, then filed the actions below, seeking to recoup the payments from the defendant automobile manufacturer to the insureds on a theory of products liability. The trial court dismissed the actions, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded recovery in tort, because the product damaged only itself in each case. The plaintiff insurance company now appeals. The appeals were consolidated for purposes of our review. We affirm the trial court in all respects, finding that the economic loss doctrine precludes recovery in these cases.
Carroll
Court of Appeals
Eddie McPeak vs. Mufflers Inc. W2001-00471-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
This appeal concerns the proper amount of damages due to the Plaintiff after the Defendant damaged the engine in the Plaintiff's 1970 Dodge Challenger. Three witnesses provided testimony on the proper amount of damages that should be awarded to the Plaintiff. The trial court utilized the testimony of the Defendant's expert witness in assessing damages. The Plaintiff appeals the trial court's judgment, asserting that the Defendant's witness relied on untrustworthy information in forming his expert opinion. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Donna Harris vs. Rulon Harris/Paige Williams vs. F. Beach Jr. W2001-00502-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This appeal involves a realtor's commission for a failed sale of real property that was jointly owned by parties to a divorce. Upon the divorce of the property owners, the court ordered that their residence be sold. Having a listing agreement with a realtor in place, a contract for the purchase of the property was signed. After difficulty consummating the sale, the realtor and the purchaser intervened in the divorce and were granted specific performance of the contract. The court's order set a closing date and an alternative divestiture closing date in case the parties again refused to cooperate. As contemplated by the court, the divorcing property owners failed to attend the closing and a date for the divestiture closing was set. A foreclosure was to occur, however, before the divestiture closing. One hour before the foreclosure, the purchaser under the contract acquired the note and allowed the foreclosure to proceed. The purchaser then acquired the remaining interest in the property at the foreclosure. The chancery court ordered the purchaser to pay to the realtor a commission on the amount paid for the note. The purchaser appealed, and for the following reasons, we reverse.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
William Eaton vs. Elnora Eaton W2001-00576-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This case involves the sale of the plaintiff's land to the defendant. The plaintiff's attorney in fact, pursuant to a valid durable power of attorney, sold the land to the defendant. The trial court held that the transaction between the attorney in fact and the defendant was fair, valid and binding as to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, by next friend, appeals the ruling of the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Kennedy v. Titan Specialized Services M2001-02696-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
On appeal from Sessions Court, the Chancellor allowed a set-off on the indebtedness. Plaintiff appeals, contending defendant filed no pleading which would entitle him to a set-off. We affirm.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
David Chilton v. James Austin M2001-02891-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In an action between former partners, their various claims against each other were submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict that did not award damages to either side. One of the partners appeals, asserting that issues were submitted to the jury that should not have been submitted, that there is no evidence to support the verdict, and that the verdict was a result of passion and prejudice because it was returned the day after the tragedy in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. We hold that the appellant waived any objection to the issues submitted to the jury, and that the objection to the verdict based on the lack of evidence cannot be sustained. We also fail to find any evidence that the events of September 11, 2001 had any effect on the jury. Therefore we affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Walter E. Preston v. W.G. Lutche M2001-03153-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Appellant filed, pro se, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. He was convicted of a Class X felony in 1982 and now seeks to rescind his April 9, 1986 waiver executed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-236. The trial court dismissed the Petition for failure of Appellant to respond to an Order requiring him to submit a copy of his inmate trust account showing all activity in the account for the six months immediately prior to the filing of the action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Petition on such basis. We hold, on the merits, that Appellant is not entitled to the relief sought. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Wendy King vs. Timothy King M2000-00424-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
This appeal arises from a divorce and custody dispute. The trial court awarded custody of the parties' four minor children to the father, and the court awarded the mother liberal visitation. The mother appeals the decision of the court below. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff filed a retaliatory discharge action based on dismissal from employment for filing a worker's compensation claim. The Trial Judge held the record established the dismissal was not retaliatory. We affirm.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Tenn. R. App. P. 54.02 does not provide this court with jurisdiction in this case for the reasons set out in the majority opinion. I would, however, treat this appeal as an interlocutory appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Bayberry would allow us to waive the finality requirement of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a) if we found good reason to suspend that requirement.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In re: L.S.W., et al M2000-01935-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Max D. Fagan
This case involves the termination of parental rights of the mother of four children who were removed from the mother's home by the Department of Children's Services in 1998 and placed in foster care. DCS devised a Plan of Care for the mother, which, among other things, required her to address her drug and alcohol addictions. During the two and one-half years between the removal of the children from the home and the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights, the mother made token efforts to improve her situation, but her substance abuse continued. The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights on multiple grounds, including the ground that the conditions that led to the children's removal continued to persist with little likelihood of remedy. Because DCS has established grounds for termination and has established that termination is in the best interest of the children, we affirm.
The appellants sued the appellees for claims connected with the death of the appellants' twin fetuses. The jury found in favor of the appellees, and, in addition, after the jury verdict, the trial court granted appellee Dr. Caldwell's motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run before he was sued. The appellants argue that this court should reverse the trial court's order dismissing Dr. Caldwell and overturn the jury's verdict. We reverse the trial court's order dismissing Dr. Caldwell, but affirm the jury verdict in his favor and in favor of the other appellee.
This appeal involves a dispute among neighbors arising out of a couple's decision to place a double-wide mobile home on their property. After one of their neighbors blocked the access road to their property to prevent them from setting up their mobile home, the couple who owned the mobile home filed suit in the Chancery Court for Perry County seeking injunctive relief and damages. In response, two of the neighboring property owners requested the trial court to establish the boundary lines, to enjoin the couple from encroaching on their property, and to award actual and punitive damages for the damage that the couple's encroachment had caused to their property. Following a bench trial that continued past midnight and a series of post-trial motions requesting various corrections in the judgment, the trial court eventually established the disputed boundary line and awarded the couple a $6,110.50 judgment against one of their neighbors to compensate them for the damages stemming from the delay in setting up their mobile home. The two neighboring property owners have appealed. They take issue with (1) the trial court's decision to hold court past midnight, (2) the manner in which the trial court considered and disposed of their post-judgment motions, (3) the trial court's decision regarding the location of the southern boundary line of the couple's property, and (4) the trial court's failure to reduce the $6,110.50 judgment by the amount of the damages the couple's encroachment had caused. We have concluded that the trial court did not commit reversible error during either the trial or the post-trial proceedings and that the trial court's decision to award the couple $6,110.50 is supported by the evidence. However, we have also concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's decision regarding a portion of the couple's southern boundary line. Accordingly, we remand the case for the sole purpose of correcting the error regarding a portion of this boundary line.
Perry
Court of Appeals
Lisa Heath vs. Memphis Radiology W2000-02770-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff sued physician, radiological group and hospital, alleging failure to discover and diagnose her malady resulting in permanent physical impairment. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants on a jury verdict, and plaintiff appealed asserting evidentiary errors and the failure of the trial judge to perform his duty as the thirteenth juror. We affirm
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Shirley Pegues vs. Lester Graves W2000-02831-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued physician when wife became pregnant after physician had performed a pregnancy avoidance procedure and allegedly guaranteed the results thereof. Defendant moved for a directed verdict which the trial court granted, but plaintiffs contend that it was granted after plaintiffs took a nonsuit. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Estate of James Kirk vs. James Lowe W2000-02858-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
The Plaintiffs in this case sued "John Doe," an unknown driver, for injuries and damages resulting from the death of Plaintiffs' decedent. Process was served on decedent's uninsured motorist insurance carrier pursuant to Tennessee's Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage statutes. More than one year after the accident, the identity of the "John Doe" was discovered and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming him as Defendant. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that he was never an uninsured motorist, but at all pertinent times was insured, and that the one-year statute of limitations had expired. The trial court denied the motion, and we reverse.
Benton
Court of Appeals
Laquita Ailsworth vs. Autozone W2000-03024-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This appeal arises from the fall of the Appellant outside the Appellee store. The Appellant filed a complaint against the Appellees in the Circuit Court of Shelby County alleging that her injuries were proximately caused by the Appellees' negligence in allowing an icy condition to exist on the walkway in front of the store. The Appellees filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Appellees' motions for summary judgment. The Appellant appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees by the Circuit Court of Shelby County. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court's decision.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Terry Littlejohn vs. Bd. of Public Utilities W2001-00011-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Appellant as a result of an electrical shock he received while roofing a house in Henry County, Tennessee. The Appellant filed a complaint against the Appellee under the Governmental Tort Liability Act in the Circuit Court of Henry County. Following a bench trial, the trial court assessed thirty-five percent of the fault to the Appellant and sixty-five percent of the fault to the Appellee. The trial court found that the total amount of damages sustained by the Appellant was $25,000.00. The trial court reduced the total amount of damages by thirty-five percent which resulted in an award of damages to the Appellant in the amount of $16,250.00. The Appellant appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Henry County assessing thirty-five percent of the fault to the Appellant and awarding damages in the amount of $16,250.00. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision.
Henry
Court of Appeals
Union Planters vs. Bettye Dedman W2001-00411-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Benham
This case is a dispute over the correct valuation of the residuary portion of Testator's estate for purposes of determining whether it was sufficient to pay estate taxes where Testator had directed by Will that such taxes be paid from the residuary. Testator's executor submits that the correct valuation date is the date of death; that neither post-death income nor appreciation of assets in the residuary should be included in the valuation; that income tax paid by the estate on income with respect to a decedent (IRD) should be included in a calculation of the death tax fund deficiency; that attorney's fees incurred as a result of protracted litigation should be included in the death tax fund deficiency calculation. Executor asks us to determine whether such deficiencies are apportionable among those receiving gifts passing outside of probate. We hold that the correct valuation date of the residuary for the purpose of determining its sufficiency to pay the death taxes is the date of Testator's death. Post-death increases should not be utilized. If the residuary on the date of death was insufficient to pay the estate taxes, these taxes are apportionable among all those interested in the estate. We further hold that although the IRD income tax and attorney's fees reduce the estate, they are not includible in the death tax fund deficiency so as to be apportionable to recipients of out of probate transfers.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Roy Shanks vs. Hazel Albert E2001-00066-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Roy Michael Shanks appeals dismissal of his suit seeking to overturn a determination of the Board of Review that he was not entitled to unemployment compensation because of misconduct. We concur in the determination of the Chancellor and affirm.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Direct Insurance Co. vs. George Brown E2001-00412-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
Trial Court declared coverage under policy issued by plaintiff to defendant for a motor vehicle accident, holding the vehicle operated by defendant was a replacement vehicle. On appeal, we reverse.
