Patricia Love vs. American Olean Tile Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Sue Ann Head, Director of the Divison of Workers' Compensation, State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting
02-S-01-9508-CV-00077
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit A. Lafon

I rely on my concurring and dissenting opinion in Bomely v. Mid-American Corp., ___ S.W.2d ___ (Tenn. 1998). While I agree with the majority's conclusion that awards of permanent and total disability are payable to age sixtyfive, I continue to disagree, as voiced in my Bomely dissent, with the majority's analysis of apportionment which discourages employers from hiring the handicapped and is contrary to the stated legislative purpose behind the Second Injury Fund legislation. An employer's liability should be limited to the first 400 weeks of benefits unless the subsequent injury would have in and of itself caused permanent and total disability in the absence of any prior injuries or disabilities. In such cases, the employer should bear responsibility for the entire award to age sixty-five.

Madison Supreme Court

Northwest Airlines, Inc., Federal Express Corp., American Airlines, Inc., Flagship Airlines, and Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Tennessee State Bd. of Equalization and CSX Transportation et al.
01S01-9702-FD-00030
Authoring Judge: Special Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.

This Court has accepted from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, certified question of law regarding the effect of the 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. §
467 - 5 - 1512 ( b ) ( 2 ) on the calculation of interest on property tax paymens and refunds. 

Davidson Supreme Court

James J. Benson v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9704-CC-00089
Authoring Judge: Special Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald Harris

This case presents for review the appeal by the petitioner, James J. Benson, from the judgment of the Cour tof Criminal Appeals affirming the trila court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner asserts that he was denied the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge because the judge who presided over his criminal trial solicitated a bribe from him. The judment denying the petition is reversed, and the petioner is granted a new trial.

Supreme Court

Robert Harold Bomely, Jr. v. Mid-America Corporation, D/B/A Burger King
03S01-9605-CH-00059
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frederick D. McDonald

In this workers’ compensation action the Second Injury Fund, defendant-appellant, has appealed from a judgment of the Chancery Court of Knox County which found the employee, Robert Bomely, plaintiff-appellee, to be totally and permanently disabled. The award was apportioned 65 percent to the employer, Mid- America Corporation, d/b/a Burger King, defendant-appellee, and 35 percent to the Second Injury Fund under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(b). The trial court assessed
the employer’s liability based on 400 weeks of benefits and held the Second Injury Fund liable for the remaining 938 weeks of benefits (until the employee reached the age of 651). Thus, the employer’s liability was limited to 65 percent of 400 weeks rather than 65 percent of the total number of weeks to age 65. We transferred this case from the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel to decide whether it was proper to have limited the employer’s liability in this fashion. After carefully examining the record before us and considering the relevant authorities, we conclude that the award should be apportioned between the employer and the Second Injury
Fund based on the total number of weeks to age 65 rather than limiting the employer’s liability to a percentage of 400 weeks. Accordingly, that portion of the trial court’s judgment is reversed. We shall also address (1) whether an award of permanent total disability is subject to the monetary cap imposed by the 400 week maximum total benefit provision of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(a)(6) and (2) whether the apportionment of benefits between the employer and the Second Injury Fund in this case is controlled by subsection (a) or (b) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208.

Knox Supreme Court

Win Myint and wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Insurance Company
01S01-9612-CH-00238
Authoring Judge: Justice Aldolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Christina Norris

In this cause, the insuror refused to pay a claim under a policy of insurance. The insured contends that such refusal constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” in violation
of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.1 In contrast, the insuror insists that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56- 7-105,2 commonly known as the “bad faith statute,” is the exclusive remedy for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim. Because Title 56, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Tennessee Code comprehensively regulates the insurance industry, the insuror insists that the acts and practices of an insurance company are never subject to the Consumer Protection Act.

Davidson Supreme Court

Win Myint and Patti Kay Myint, et. ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company
01S01-9612-CH-00238
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Christina Norris

In this cause, the insuror refused to pay a claim under a policy of insurance. The insured contends that such refusal constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.1 In contrast, the insuror insists that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56- 7-105,2 commonly known as the “bad faith statute,” is the exclusive remedy for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim. Because Title 56, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Tennessee Code comprehensively regulates the insurance industry, the insuror insists that the acts and practices of an insurance company are never subject to the Consumer Protection Act.

Davidson Supreme Court

Castlewood Inc., v. Anderson County, Tennessee; Patsy Stair, Trustee; Owen K. Richardson, Tax Assessor, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Tennessee State Board of Equalization
03S01-9705-CH-00053
Authoring Judge: Special Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William W. Lantrip

This case presents for review the Court of Appeals' decision that the classificatin as industrial and commercial of two or more condominiums units rented by the owners to others for their use as residences does not violate Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution. Nor does the statute violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. That decision is affirmed.

 

Knox Supreme Court

Curtis R. Thrapp vs. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp
E2006-00088-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
The parties were divorced in Oregon where the Court ordered the custodial arrangement for the only child of the marriage. The Mother then moved to Colorado, where she filed suit in Colorado in the custody dispute. She then moved to Tennessee, where the Father sued her over the ongoing dispute. The Colorado Court ultimately declined jurisdiction and the Tennessee Court ordered a change of the custody. The mother has appealed. We affirm the change of custody.

Blount Court of Appeals

Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Stanfill
01A01-9710-JV-00616
Trial Court Judge: Andrew J. Shookhoff

Davidson Court of Appeals

Ramsey vs. Burkhalter & Ryan
01A01-9707-CH-00318
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Davidson Court of Appeals

Hawkins & Gossett vs. Hart, et. al.
01A01-9707-CV-00294
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Davidson Court of Appeals

Coastcom, Inc. vs. Cruzen, et.ux.
01A01-9707-CH-00349
Trial Court Judge: H. Denmark Bell

Williamson Court of Appeals

TN. Real Estate Comm. vs. Hamilton
01A01-9707-CH-00320
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Davidson Court of Appeals

Charles Montague, v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, and Warden Howard Carlton
01A01-9711-CH-00667
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

The plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, brought this action against the Department and its Commissioner seeking a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to a refund of $64.00 charged against his custodial account for a key lost by the prisoner.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Montague vs. Dept. of Corrections
01A01-9711-CH-00667
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Davidson Court of Appeals

J.B. Hinson, et. ux. vs. Beechview Corp.
01A01-9709-CH-00498
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones

Wayne Court of Appeals

National Healthcare L.P. vs. Sparta Medical Investors
01A01-9712-CH-00718
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Davidson Court of Appeals

National Healthcare L.P. vs. Sparta Medical Investors
01A01-9712-CH-00718

Court of Appeals

State vs. Walter Ellison
01C01-9708-CR-00361
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

Sumner Court of Criminal Appeals

Ogilvie vs. Metro Gov't. vs. Nashille Electric Svc.
01A01-9709-CV-00466
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

Davidson Court of Appeals

McMahan vs. Whisman
01A01-9711-CH-00681
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Davidson Court of Appeals

Moore, et. ux. vs. Phillips, Sr.
01A01-9605-CH-00197
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart

Sequatchie Court of Appeals

Charles E. Jones v. State of Tennessee
W2007-01086-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Lee V. Coffee

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

Haren Construction v. Metro Nashville and Davidson County
M2002-01135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a contract between the Appellant Haren Construction Company, Inc. (HCCI) and the Appellee Metropolitan Government (Metro). The construction company brought suit claiming Metro breached its contract with HCCI in "constructive suspension" of work. In addition the construction company claimed that Metro interfered with the company's contract for equipment supply from a third party. The trial court granted Metro's two motions for summary judgment, the first concerning Metro's alleged liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, the second concerning the action for breach of contract. HCCI appeals the grant of summary judgment. We affirm.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Miller vs. Willbanks
03A01-9709-CV-00411
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson

Hamblen Court of Appeals