APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a dispute over the obligation of a member of a group health insurance plan to reimburse the plan for medical payments made on behalf of the member’s dependent. The plan’s administrator requested the member and her dependent to reimburse the plan for the medical payments after discovering that the dependent had received a financial settlement from the person who caused the dependent’s injuries. When the member and the dependent refused to reimburse the payments, the plan filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against both parties. The trial court granted the plan’s motion for summary judgment and ordered both the member and her dependent to reimburse the plan for medical payments. We have determined that the plan was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against the member and accordingly vacate the summary judgment against her.

This appeal arises out of the trial court’s entry of an “agreed” order ostensibly resolving a dispute between plaintiffs Sullivan County and the Sullivan County Building Commissioner (collectively “the County”) and defendant Joe Ellis Lyon (“Lyon”). Lyon appeals, arguing that he did not consent to the entry of the order. We find and hold that the order should not have been entered.

This case is a consolidation of three breach of contract actions, each of which arose out of disputes regarding major renovations and additions to a commercial building in Harriman housing an automobile dealership owned by Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. (“Jerry Duncan Ford”). Jerry Duncan Ford filed an action against the general contractor in charge of the project, J. Roy Frost, doing business as Frost Construction Company (“Frost”), after terminating Frost’s services because of unsatisfactory performance. Frost in turn filed an action against Jerry Duncan Ford for breach of contract. The third action was filed by Customer Service Electric Supply, Inc. (“Customer Service”), against Jerry Duncan Ford, Frost, M. Jerry Duncan (“Mr. Duncan”), and Judy C. Duncan (“Judy Duncan”), seeking payment for certain exterior light fixtures that it had installed at the dealership. After a bench trial, the court awarded Jerry Duncan Ford damages reflecting the difference between the total cost of the construction and $313,200, a “ceiling” that -- as found by the trial court -- Frost had guaranteed. The trial court also awarded Customer Service damages against Frost, but denied the former’s request for a judgment against Jerry Duncan Ford and the Duncans. Frost appeals, raising the following issues for our consideration: