Ebbtide Corp. vs. The Travelers Ins. Co., et al M1999-01932-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
The insurance broker involved in this matter, Willis Corroon, failed to forward to Plaintiff the terms for reinstatement of Plaintiff's workers compensation policy, which terms were faxed to Willis Corroon by Travelers, the insurer. As a result, Plaintiff, Ebbtide Corp., was without insurance for several months, during which time one severe worker's compensation claim was filed and paid for by Plaintiff. The trial court determined that Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-6-147 was not applicable to Willis Corroon as an insurance broker; as such, Willis Corroon was the agent of Plaintiff, the insured. Thus, Travelers fulfilled its contract with Plaintiff by properly communicating the terms for insurance reinstatement to Plaintiff's agent, Willis Corroon. Willis Corroon was found to be negligent for not forwarding these terms on to the Plaintiff and liable for all damages incurred by Plaintiff as a result of their being uninsured. The preliminary question to be determined is whether section 56-6-147 applies in this matter to make Willis Corroon the agent of the insurance company. We agree with the trial court's determination that section 56-6-147 does not apply to the facts presented in this matter and affirm the trial court's ruling.
Dickson
Court of Appeals
Town of Linden, et al vs. Bliss Garcia, et al M2000-01776-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This case presents an appeal from a declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiffs/Appellants, Town of Linden and Tex Smith, to request an interpretation of the phrase "next regular election" contained in the charter for the town of Linden. The trial court held that this phrase included the next county election, being the next regularly scheduled election in the town of Linden on August 3, 2000, and also held that the town of Linden had no standing to bring a declaratory judgment action on this issue. Plaintiffs appealed both holdings. We affirm the trial court on both issues.
Perry
Court of Appeals
Peter Kuderewski, et al vs. Estate of Hoover Hoobs, et al E2000-02515-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
Peter Kuderewski and David Sanchez ("Plaintiffs") sued Hoover Hobbs ("Defendant"), alleging they had an implied partnership during the beginning phases of a now-defunct plan to open a family fun center in Kingsport, Tennessee ("Project"). Plaintiff argues the parties had agreed to use property ("Property") already owned by Defendant for the Project. A portion of the Property was later sold, and Plaintiffs sought to recover 50% of the sale price pursuant to their claimed respective partnership interests. Alternatively, Plaintiffs claim they were entitled to recover, under a theory of unjust enrichment money spent toward improving Defendant's Property in anticipation of the Project. After a bench trial, the Trial Court denied both of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Kenneth Psillas, et al vs. Home Depot, Inc. M1999-00064-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal involves an eight-year-old boy who was injured while playing on a roll of carpet in a home improvement store. The child and his parents filed a negligence action against the home improvement retailer in the Circuit Court for Williamson County. After extensive discovery, the retailer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the child and his parents had failed to demonstrate that they would be able to prove all the necessary elements of their negligence claim. The child and his parents responded that they had presented sufficient evidence to make out their claim based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment but authorized the retailer to pursue a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal. We have determined that the trial court erred by denying the retailer's summary judgment motion because the boy and his parents have not presented sufficient evidence to invoke the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand the case to the trial court with directions that the case be dismissed.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Kathryn Darden vs. Bradley Sensing, et al M2000-01519-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal arises from the Appellant's purchase of a house and property owned by the Appellees. Following the purchase, a landslide occurred on the property. The Appellant filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Davidson County seeking compensatory damages against the Appellees for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, breach of contract, deceit, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Following a jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the Appellees. The Appellant filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The Appellant appeals the jury verdict in favor of the Appellees and the denial of the motion for a new trial by the Chancery Court of Davidson County. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: Dakota Hoover-Crawford , Colton Thomas & Dusty Thomas, Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Niki Crawford Thomas M2000-01655-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: John B. Melton
This is a suit for the termination of parental rights. The Appellee filed a petition to terminate the Appellant's parental rights to three of her minor children. Following a hearing, the Juvenile Court of Cannon County entered an order terminating the Appellant's parental rights. The Appellant appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Cannon
Court of Appeals
Kathy Phillips, et al vs. Scotty Redmon, et al M1999-01619-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Wilson County the Appellant, Justin Redmon, a minor child, through his guardian ad litem, questions whether the Trial Court erred in granting a petition filed by the Appellee, Kathy Phillips, to change custody from Justin's natural father, Scotty Redmon, to Ms. Phillips, Mr. Redmon's sister. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for collection of costs below.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Christina Mae Stroud vs. Jimmy Stroud M1999-02239-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
In this post-divorce case, the mother appeals the trial court's refusal to overturn a 1995 order awarding the father a judgment against her and sentencing her to ten days in jail for contempt of court. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Gulf Insurance Co. vs. Construx, Inc., et al M1999-02803-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This is an appeal from the grant of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The case arises from a construction contract in which Gulf Insurance Co. provided Construx, Inc. the required payment and performance bonds, and in return obtained an indemnity contract with the individual Defendants as indemnitors. Additionally, a Settlement Agreement was executed in connection with the permanent loan financing and Gulf settled the subcontractor liens with the remaining proceeds of the construction loan. After payments were made, Gulf sued for indemnity under the indemnity contract for payments made. Construx asserted that the Settlement Agreement barred Plaintiff's claims or, alternatively, Gulf did not act reasonably and in good faith in settling the claims and is not entitled to recovery. Summary judgment was granted to Gulf and Construx appealed. For the reasons below, we reverse and remand finding that there are genuine issues of fact, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Dale Conrad McQuiston vs. Thomas Ward, Sheriff of Perry County M2001-00201-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
Dale Conrad McQuiston filed a pleading entitled "Writ of Replevin" wherein he sought to recover $1,000 cash and various items of personal property which were alleged to have been seized by the defendant Thomas Ward, Sheriff of Perry County, Tennessee. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm on the basis that Mr. McQuiston's suit was barred by the three year statute of limitations set forth in section 28-3-105 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.
Perry
Court of Appeals
Warbington Construction, Inc. vs. Franklin Landmark, LLC M2000-00676-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves the vacating of an arbitration award by the court below. The trial court applied nonstatutory grounds to vacate the decision of the arbitrator. Because we decline to adopt the nonstatutory grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, we reverse.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas Fulbright vs. Bevans Fulbright E2000-02040-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
Thomas Fulbright ("Husband") filed for divorce alleging inappropriate marital conduct on the part of Bevans Ramsey Fulbright ("Wife"). Wife filed a counter-claim seeking a divorce on the same basis. The Trial Court granted both parties a divorce, divided the marital property, awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony, and granted primary physical custody of the three minor children to Wife. Husband appeals all of these determinations, and Wife appeals the Trial Court's refusal to award her attorney fees. We affirm as modified.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Patricia Williams vs. Canada Life vs. James Williams/Deborah Elg W2000-03096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
The plaintiff's husband died from a single gunshot wound to his chest which occurred while the two were alone in their home. By whose hand he died was the sole issue at both the trial and on appeal. If the plaintiff's husband shot himself, as she claims, she receives the proceeds from an insurance policy on his life. However, if she shot and killed her husband, as his adult children assert, they receive the insurance proceeds. Following the trial, the chancery court concluded that the death occurred as the result of a suicide. The defendants appealed, arguing that the presumption against suicide compels the conclusion that their father was shot to death by the plaintiff, their stepmother. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court that the death occurred as the result of a suicide.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Gatlinburg Airport Authority, Inc. vs. Ross B. Summitt, et al E2000-02646-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
An electrical transmission line owned and maintained by TVA is located about 1000 feet from the eastern end of the runway at the airport owned and operated by the Gatlinburg Airport Authority [GAA]. The transmission line was constructed before the Airport was established. The two have coexisted without mishap, and no official publication, State or Federal, warns of any danger to aircraft posed by the transmission line. However, because of the transmission line, 360 feet of the runway cannot be used by aircraft landing or taking off. The GAA, after 35 years, concluded that the transmission line was an airport hazard. TVA is immune from suit, but agreed to relocate its transmission line if GAA would acquire the necessary easement over lands of the defendants. The trial court dismissed the eminent domain action, holding that (1) the plaintiffs should seek relief against TVA if the transmission line is hazardous, (2) the line is not hazardous, (3) there is no necessity to remove the line, (4) the attempted condemnation is arbitrary and capricious. The judgment is vacated.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Dennis Plemons, et al vs. Larry Moses, et al E2000-02781-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Dennis Plemons ("Plaintiff") leased the Crossroads Market to Larry Moses ("Defendant") pursuant to a five-year lease. Prior to the expiration of the lease, Plaintiff found new tenants willing to pay significantly more to lease the property. Plaintiff informed Defendant about the new potential tenants and gave Defendant the opportunity to continue leasing the property if he would pay this higher rent. Defendant declined to lease the property for this increased amount. Plaintiff allowed Defendant to continue leasing the property until the new tenants were ready to assume possession of the property. When the new tenants were ready to assume possession, Defendant refused to vacate the premises claiming that he was a holdover tenant and entitled to possession of the property under a year-to-year tenancy after the expiration of the lease. The Circuit Court held that a new month-to- month tenancy had been created and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to possession. We affirm.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
William P. Livingston, Jr. vs. Mike Hayes, et al E2000-01619-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamblen County, the Plaintiff/Appellant, William P. Livingston, Jr., questions whether the Trial Court erred in entering a summary judgment dismissing his action for libel against the Defendants/Appellees, Mike Hayes, et al. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for collection of costs below. We adjudge costs of the appeal against Mr. Livingston and his surety.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Karen Garrett Humphries vs. David Alison Humphries E2000-02912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
In this divorce case, the trial court classified the parties' property, following which it divided the marital property, but declined to order spousal support. The husband appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in classifying the increase in value of his separate property as marital property; (2) that the division of the marital property was not equitable; and (3) that the trial court erred in assigning, without classifying, the wife's credit card debt to the husband. By way of a separate issue, the wife argues that she is entitled to an award of alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
E2000-01823-COA-R3-CV E2000-01823-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John L. Kiener
Washington
Court of Appeals
David Melvin York, et ux vs. Vulcan Materials CO. vs. Transcontinental Insurance Company E2000-02528-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
Contractor sought recovery from subcontractor's insurance carrier for moneys paid to a third party who had sued contractor and subcontractor in tort. The Trial Court ordered recovery under the policy. Insurance Company appealed. We affirm.
Rachel Rice vs. Lee Rice M1998-00973-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves the dissolution of a four-year marriage. Both parties requested the Circuit Court for Davidson County to grant them a divorce. On the day of trial, the parties stipulated that they should be declared divorced and agreed upon the division of their modest marital estate. Accordingly, the trial court heard proof regarding child custody and child support as well as the wife's request for rehabilitative spousal support. The trial court gave sole custody of the parties' child to the wife and directed the husband to pay $570 per month in child support, as well as all the child's healthcare expenses not covered by insurance. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay the wife $250 per month in rehabilitative support for twenty-four months. On this appeal, the husband takes issue with the trial court's decisions to grant the wife sole custody of the parties' child, to require him to pay the child's medical expenses not covered by insurance, and to pay the wife $250 per month in spousal support for twenty-four months. We have determined that the trial court's decisions are amply supported by the record, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Rhonda Lowrimore vs. Certified Industries, Inc. M1998-00938-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves an award of front pay damages in a retaliatory discharge case. An employee who had been injured on the job five times in less than two years filed a retaliatory discharge suit in the Circuit Court for Lewis County alleging that her employer had discharged her in retaliation for her workers' compensation claims. A jury awarded the employee $10,390 in back pay and $20,000 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the trial court determined that reinstatement was not feasible and awarded the employee an additional $36,327 in front pay. On this appeal, the employer challenges the front pay award on two grounds. First, it asserts that the employee was not entitled to front pay. Second, it asserts that if the employee is entitled to front pay, the amount of front pay awarded by the trial court is too high. We have determined that the trial court correctly determined that the employee is entitled to front pay. However, we have also determined that front pay award must be reduced to $25,429 because of an error in the trial court's computations.
This is a post-divorce custody proceeding. Jean Kelly Fisher Wallace (“mother”) was granted a divorce in the Chancery Court of Shelby County from Richard Edward Wallace (“father”) in May, 1992. Mother was awarded custody of the parties’ minor child, Caroline. In April, 1995, father filed a petition to change legal custody from mother to father. Following a bench trial, the court denied the relief sought by father and permitted custody to remain with mother. The court delayed its decision for six months, principally to allow mother the opportunity to make changes in two aspects of her life: (1) the neighborhood in which she and the minor child had been living for slightly over a year and (2) her ongoing association and relationship with her boyfriend. The trial court felt both aspects were detrimental to the welfare of the parties’ child.
Defendant First Capital Home Improvements appeals the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees Sara J. Malone and Jerry H. Malone in this breach of contract action. We affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Barbara Korthoff vs. Herbert Korthoff W2001-01712-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
In this pending divorce action, the trial court ordered Husband to transfer $300,000.00 to Wife as a partial distribution of the marital estate. Husband filed an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 Tenn. R. App. P. which this Court granted. Husband contends that the trial court is without authority to make a partial distribution of marital funds during the pendency of the divorce action. Furthermore, if the court had such authority, it could not do so absent an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the property was marital or separate. The application was granted and the order of the trial court reversed.
