Girtman & Associates, Inc. v. Stephen St. Amour, et al.
A commercial dealer in doors and associated hardware sued a former employee for breach of a non-compete agreement. The dealer asked the court to award it either injunctive relief or liquidated damages in the amount of $321,500. After a bench trial the trial court concluded that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable under the circumstances and dismissed the claim for liquidated damages. The court did, however, award the plaintiff nominal damages of $200 on its claim of unfair competition based on use of a proprietary form, as well as punitive damages of $3,000 on the same claim. The dealer appealed. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
David Holt, et al. v. Barbara Pyles, et al. - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the policy is not ambiguous and does not include excess coverage for injuries caused by uninsured motorists. I disagree, however, with the majority’s resolution of the estoppel claim because I do not agree that the requirements for summary judgment for the insurer on that claim were met. To properly support its motion, the moving party must either affirmatively negate an essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or conclusively establish an affirmative defense. If the moving party fails to negate a claimed basis for the suit, the non-moving party’s burden to produce evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue for trial is not triggered and the motion for summary judgment must fail. If the moving party successfully negates a claimed basis for the action, the non-moving party may not simply rest upon the pleadings, but must offer proof to establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim. Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88-89 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted). Thus, if, but only if, the moving party presents evidence sufficient to justify grant of the motion if the facts remain uncontested, the nonmoving party is required to come forward with some significant probative evidence which makes it necessary to resolve a factual dispute at trial. Where the moving party satisfactorily challenges the nonmoving party’s ability to prove an essential element of its claim, the nonmoving party has the burden of pointing out, rehabilitating, or providing new evidence to create a factual dispute as to that element. Staples, 15 S.W.3d at 88-89; Rains v. Bend of the A defendant moving for summary judgment must, in its filings supporting the motion, either affirmatively negate an essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or conclusively establish an affirmative defense. Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.2d 761, 767 (Tenn. 2004); Staples, 105 S.W.3d at 88-89. Only if the moving party presents evidence sufficient to justify grant of the motion if the facts remain uncontested is the nonmoving party required to come forward with some significant probative evidence which makes it necessary to resolve a factual dispute at trial. A defendant moving for summary judgment cannot rely solely on omissions in the plaintiff’s proof. McCarley v. West Quality Food Service, 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998) (holding that the plaintiff’s inability to show whether his food poisoning was caused by defendant’s chicken or by food eaten at breakfast did not suffice to affirmatively negate the causation element of his negligence claim). Mere assertions that the non-moving party has produced no evidence do not suffice to entitle the moving party to summary judgment. Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 767-68; Staples, 15 S.W.3d at 88-89; Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tenn. 1998); McCarley, 960 S.W.2d at 588; Arnett v. Domino’s Pizza, 124 S.W.3d 529, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). I cannot read the “New Policy Coverage Summary” as putting a reasonable person on notice that the “Optional Excess Protection” provision does not apply to the uninsured motorist coverage. While the relationship between the excess protection coverage and the uninsured motorist coverage is made clear in the lengthy policy itself, specifically the Optional Excess Liability Coverage endorsement or form, nothing in Mr. Holt’s affidavit indicates he received that form or the entire policy before the accident. His affidavit refers only to the policy summary. Apparently, Encompass did not file an affidavit stating that it had provided the complete policy to Mr. Holt. In any event, I believe that Mr. Holt’s affidavit raises sufficient questions about misrepresentation by the agent as to his protection under the excess coverage provision and his reasonable reliance on those representations to preclude summary judgment. [A] representation of fact made to a party who relies thereon with the right to so rely may not be denied . . . if such denial would result in injury or damage to the relying party. Negligent silence . . . [or] conduct which . . . in fact mislead will work an estoppel notwithstanding there was no intention to do so. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Avery, 914 F.2d 255, 1990 WL 132245, at *5 (6th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (summarizing Tennessee law). Questions of reasonable reliance and misrepresentation are fact specific. I believe Mr. Holt has testified to sufficient facts to present a question for the fact finder. Encompass has not negated an essential element of the estoppel claim and, therefore, is not entitled to summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
David Holt, et al. v. Barbara Pyles, et al. and David Holt, et al. v. State of Tennessee
This case concerns a motor vehicle accident in which serious injuries were sustained. The insured believed that his insurance policy provided excess coverage if he were to be involved in an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist. In forming this belief, he relied upon statements by the insurance agent and the summary pages of his policy. Following the accident, the insurance company denied that the insured maintained excess protection under his uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, citing an exclusionary endorsement in the policy. The insured alleged that the policy was ambiguous. The trial court granted the insurance company’s Motion For Summary Judgment, ruling that the policy was not ambiguous and that the insured’s affidavit was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the representations made by the insurance agent. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph C. Curtsinger, Jr. M.D. v. HCA, Inc.
Davidson County- Surgeon filed action against hospital and other related persons and entities seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages for the allegedly improper revocation of his hospital privileges and the false reporting of such to the State Medical Board and the National Practitioner Data Bank. The trial court granted Defendants partial summary judgment on all monetary claims asserted by surgeon pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) and the Tennessee Peer Review Law. Having found that surgeon failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants did not satisfy the four prong test for immunity provided under HCQIA, we affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Melinda Robinson v. Jessie Glenn, Jr.
Appellant challenges trial court’s rescission of a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (“VAP”) and termination of child support. We reverse. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Mary Gertrude Ralph, deceased. Patricia Butler, Co-Executor of the Estate of Mary Gertrude Ralph v. Wayne Ralph
This is a will contest. The decedent was an 89-year-old woman with eight grown children. In May 2004, the decedent was diagnosed with senile dementia. Shortly thereafter, the trial court established a conservatorship for the decedent. On August 2, 2004, the decedent executed a will that divided her estate equally among her children. After the decedent died in 2005, the will was submitted for probate. One of the decedent’s sons contested the August 2004 will, asserting that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity when it was executed, and submitted for probate an earlier will whose terms favored him and disinherited three of the children. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the decedent had the mental capacity to execute the August 2, 2004 will and admitted it for probate. The will contestant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proving testamentary capacity on him instead of placing it on the will’s proponent, and that the trial court also erred in finding that the decedent had testamentary capacity to execute the August 2, 2004 will. We affirm, finding that the issue turns primarily on the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s finding that the decedent had testamentary capacity to execute the August 2, 2004 will. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
City of Memphis v. The Civil Service Commission of The City of Memphis and Richard Lindsey
This appeal involves the termination of a police officer’s employment with the Memphis Police Department. The officer appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis (“the Commission”). The Commission found that the City of Memphis (“the City”) had not shown that termination was reasonable, and it ordered that Officer Lindsey be reinstated with full back pay and benefits. The chancery court affirmed the Commission’s decision. For the following reasons, we reverse and uphold the City’s decision to terminate the officer. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re J.C.J. and J.E.J.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of E.S.J. (“Father”) with respect to his minor children, J.C.J. (DOB: April 30, 2003) and J.E.J. (DOB: May 4, 2002) (collectively “the children”), upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the best interest of the children. The court awarded the maternal grandparents temporary custody of the children. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth B. White v. William Bacon, M.D., et al.
Inmate filed medical malpractice action against hospital for the allegedly negligent performance of his surgery and the failure to order appropriate post-operative treatment instructions. Hospital filed motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was an improper party to the suit because it was not a legal entity capable of being sued. The trial court granted the motion and inmate appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court, finding that (1) hospital is not a legal entity capable of being sued; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing hospital to reset its motion for summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Crystal Capitol, LLC v. Katharine McManus Barber - Dissenting
I regret that I cannot concur with the court’s opinion in this case. Based on the law, I cannot conclude, as the court has done, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ms. McManus’s tardy Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to set aside the properly granted default judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Crystal Capitol, LLC v. Katharine McManus Barber
The trial court refused to set aside a default judgment based upon the defendant’s delay in filing a motion to set aside. Because the defendant promptly notified the court that she had a meritorious defense, because the only evidence in the record shows the defendant did not willfully ignore the action against her, because the plaintiff has failed to allege or show any prejudice that would result from setting aside the judgment, and because relief should be granted where there is any reasonable doubt that the judgment by default should be set aside, we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
O'Rane M. Cornish, Sr. v. The Home Depot, Incorporated
This case arises from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee on a malicious prosecution complaint filed by Plaintiff/Appellant. Defendant/Appellee certified that it mailed copies of its filings, including its motion for summary judgment, to an incorrect address for Plaintiff/Appellant. Under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.02, if by mail, service must be made to the last known address of the party. Because Defendant/Appellee mailed its notice to an incorrect address, Plaintiff/Appellant was not properly noticed. We reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert J. Denley Co., Inc. v. Neal Smith Construction Company, Inc., et al.
The parties to a construction contract dispute the enforceability of its arbitration provision. The trial court refused to enforce the arbitration provision. The construction company appealed. The developer argues that the arbitration provision is unenforceable because it did not assent to arbitration, or alternatively, the arbitration provision was induced by fraud or unconscionable. The developer also claims that the defendants waived their right to arbitrate, and that they lack standing to enforce the right to arbitrate. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the chancery court and remand for entry of an order compelling arbitration. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Tri-State Home Improvement v. Marilyn Starks
The plaintiff contractor filed a complaint in Shelby County General Sessions Civil Court against the defendant for a debt owed for various house repairs performed according to a service contract. The case was appealed to the Shelby County Circuit Court. Discovery was conducted, and the defendant filed a motion for leave to file a counter-complaint, which the trial court granted. In her countercomplaint, the defendant alleged that the contractor had not fulfilled the terms of the contract within the specified time period, that the contractor had failed to make repairs in compliance with local building codes as provided by the contract, and that the contractor had failed to perform repairs in a workmanlike manner. A bench trial was held, and the trial court found that the defendant was entitled to offset the original contract price of $14,981 by $5,500, and it entered judgment in favor of the contractor for $9,481 representing the remaining contract price. The trial court denied the contractor any award of attorney’s fees, and it assessed court costs against the defendant. The defendant appealed to this Court. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Madison County, Tennessee v. Dee Ann Culbreath, et al. and City of Jackson, Intervenor
This is a declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff county filed the instant lawsuit seeking a declaration that the defendant county library board of trustees has no authority under the pertinent Tennessee statute to contract with private entities for the management of the local library. The city intervened, arguing that the library board had the authority under the statute to enter into such contracts. Upon stipulated facts, the trial court held that the statute at issue authorizes the library board to contract with private entities for the management of the county library. The county now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the authority conferred upon the county library board in Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-3-104 includes the authority to enter into private contracts for the management of the local library. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Bradshaw v. Chattanooga Railcar Services, LLV, and Kingsport Rail Car Services, LLC
Plaintiff sued corporate defendants alleging that defendants failed to make proper distribution to shareholders under the operating agreements of each company. The Trial Court held that plaintiff received cash distributions from one of the companies or from KRS sufficient to pay his income tax liability under the terms of the operating agreement, but no distribution was made by CRS. On appeal, plaintiff argues that CRS, a separate entity from KRS, was required under the operating agreement to distribute to the plaintiff funds sufficient to pay his tax liability, since distributions were made to other members. Under the plain language of the agreement, we agree that plaintiff was due a distribution and we remand for the Trial Court to determine the proper amount. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Outdoor Management, LLC, et al. v. William H. Thomas, Jr.
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s orders finding Appellant in civil contempt and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Appellees. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Calvin Westervelt v. State of Tennessee
Claimant sought to recover for injuries allegedly caused by an agency of the State. The Claims Commission found claimant to be 65% at fault. Therefore, under the rule of comparative fault adopted in McIntyre v. Ballentine, Claimant was precluded from an award of damages. Claimant asks this Court to affirm in order that he may proceed with the appellate process. We affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Samantha D. Reed v. First Horizon National Bank, et al.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order adopting the Report of the Special Master, dismissing her case, and authorizing foreclosure proceedings. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Bond #249793 v. Tennessee Department of Correction
While an inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility, Anthony Bond was found guilty by the prison disciplinary board of assault on a visitor, placed in punitive segregation for 15 days, and ordered to pay a $5 fine. Mr. Bond challenged the conviction by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wayne County Chancery Court. The trial court, after granting the petition and reviewing a certified copy of the disciplinary record, found that Mr. Bond was not entitled to any relief and dismissed the case. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Lanier Worldwide, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, et al.
This case involves the protest of a bid made pursuant to an invitation to bid issued by the State for copy machines. Upon protest made by several of the bidders as to the bid made by the selected bidder, the board of standards, after review, awarded the contract to the selected bidder. The next qualified bidder filed suit in chancery court, and the chancery court reversed the decision of the board of standards and awarded the contract to the complaining bidder. The State-defendants and the selected bidder appeal. We reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Donald F. Bradford, et al v. James W. Sell, et al
The issue presented in this lease dispute is whether the landlord or the tenant is responsible for payment of the costs of ad valorem real estate taxes and premiums for fire and extended coverage insurance. We hold that pursuant to the clear and unambiguous agreement of the parties, the tenant is responsible for the costs at issue. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
James E. Blount, III, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
This dispute concerns annexation of property known as the Southwind area by the City of Memphis. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to intervene in Plaintiffs’ quo warranto action challenging Memphis’ annexation ordinance, and entered a consent order agreed to by the parties following settlement negotiations. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa D. Sherlin v. Sandra G. Hall
Teresa D. Sherlin (“Plaintiff”) sued Sandra G. Hall in the Circuit Court for Bradley County (“Trial Court”) seeking compensation for personal injuries and property damage sustained when a vehicle driven by Ms. Hall collided head-on with a vehicle being driven by Plaintiff while Plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of her employment. At the time of the accident, Ms. Hall did not have a driver’s license and was an uninsured motorist. Plaintiff’s uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”), answered Plaintiff’s complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Farmers summary judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff was receiving workers’ compensation benefits, these workers’ compensation benefits exceeded the limits of liability of Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist policy, and because the limits of liability of the uninsured motorist policy are reduced by the amount of the workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the insurance policy, Farmers had no liability to Plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. A Quality, Inc, d/b/a Mr. Pride, et al.
This case involves the interpretation of a lease agreement as it pertains to ownership of an advertising sign structure. The trial court found that Defendant/Appellee, the Lessor under the lease, is the owner of the sign structure pursuant to the terms of the lease. Plaintiff/Appellant contends that the plain language of the lease indicates that it is the owner of the disputed sign. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
