APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a dispute between a road contractor and the Tennessee Department of Transportation involving two construction projects in the Nashville area. Following extensive construction delays attributed to the relocation of utilities, the contractor filed claims based on negligence and breach of contract with the Tennessee Division of Claims Administration which were transferred to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The trial court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all the contractor's claims. We have determined that the trial court correctly dismissed the contractor's negligence claims but that the trial court erred by denying the contractor's breach of contract claims. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment dismissing the contractor's contract claims and remand the case for further proceedings.

A workers' compensation insurance carrier assessed a retrospective premium increase of over $60,000 against a contractor after auditing the company's books and finding evidence that its subcontractors employed more workers than the contractor had declared. The contractor filed an administrative appeal of the assessment, arguing that the additional workers were not actually employees of its subcontractors, but members of de facto partnerships, and thus not covered under the contractor's policy. The administrative law judge agreed, and found that the contractor was not liable for the additional premium. The Chancery Court of Davidson County reversed the administrative law judge, finding that the insurance company was entitled to the additional premium, because it had borne the risk of liability to those workers for on-the-job injuries. We affirm the Chancery Court.

Defendants appeal the action of the trial court denying a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04
motion seeking to set aside a previous grant of summary judgment. We have determined that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and therefore affirm the judgment.

A building contractor agreed to make certain repairs to a residence and procured a performance bond as required by the Metro Government. To obtain the bond the contractor was required to execute an indemnity agreement favorably to the bonding company. The homeowner complained of the quality of the contractor's workmanship, and the Codes Department of the Metro. Government determined that certain remedial action should be taken by the contractor in order to achieve compliance with the building code. The contractor declined to do so, insisting that the problems complained of were caused by the homeowner; whereupon, the bonding company engaged another contractor to make the repairs, and filed this action against the initial contractor for indemnification. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the bonding company. We affirm.

This is a boundary line dispute. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants to establish common boundary lines and to recover for timber cut from their land. One of the defendants counterclaimed for damages to his land. The trial court found that the defendants' proposed boundary line was the correct boundary line, but granted the plaintiffs a perpetual easement over the defendants' land. The trial court declined to award the plaintiffs compensation for the cut timber. On appeal, one of the defendants argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to produce findings of facts, erred in granting a perpetual easement across the defendants' land, and erred in failing to grant the defendants damages. The plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in failing to award them damages and discretionary costs. We reverse the award of a perpetual easement since the record does not indicate that such relief was sought, and affirm the remainder of the trial court's decision.

After a thirty-six year marriage, Wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, inappropriate marital conduct, and adultery. The trial court granted the divorce to Wife, divided the marital property, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $425 per month. Husband appeals. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this divorce Husband appeals the type and amount of alimony awarded Wife at the end of a twenty-three year marriage. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings and the trial court acted within its discretion in applying relevant legal principles, we affirm.

While I concur in the majority’s opinion finding that grounds for termination of Hall’s parental rights as to R.L.H. have been established by clear and convincing evidence, I dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that termination of Hall’s parental rights is in the best interests of the minor child. I recognize that the evidence is certainly not favorable to Hall in some particulars, including the fact that her sole support is derived from social security, that she has no prospects of employment in the near future, her past failure to provide a safe and suitable home for the minor child in the face of abuse, her impaired mental condition, and the fact that Hall had no suitable residence for the child at the time of trial. However, this court must balance this evidence with the situation as it pertains to R.L.H. R.L.H. is a special needs child who has specific learning, speech, and behavioral problems. All reports indicate that R.L.H. is in need of continued counseling and therapy. Under the current arrangement, R.L.H. resides in a therapeutic foster home under the care of trained foster parents. This foster home has served as a stable and supportive environment for the minor child since approximately July 2000.

This is an insurance case. The mother and the father were covered by an automobile insurance policy that excluded coverage for certain family members who were residents of the same household as the insureds. The mother was pregnant with a viable fetus. She was at fault in an automobile accident in which she and the fetus died. On behalf of the deceased fetus, the father filed a wrongful death action against the mother's estate. On a motion for partial summary judgment, the father sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether the insurance company was obligated to provide coverage for the deceased fetus. The trial court found that the insurance policy's family exclusion provision was ambiguous. Consequently, it construed the policy in favor of the father, finding that the fetus was not considered a resident of the father's household and that the insurance company was required to provide coverage for the deceased fetus. After a trial, the father was awarded damages plus prejudgment interest. The insurance company and the administrator ad litem of the mother's estate appeal. The insurance company argues that the fetus was excluded from coverage. The administrator ad litem of the mother's estate asserts that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. We reverse, finding that the fetus was a resident of the mother's household, and consequently a resident of the father's household, and that the insurance company was therefore not obligated to provide coverage for the fetus. The award of prejudgment interest is reversed as well.

Petition to alter Respondent Utility's boundary was sustained by County Executive and Trial Court. On appeal, we vacate and remand with instructions.

In a dispute over corporate ownership and management, the Trial Court awarded Judgment for compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees. On appeal, we affirm the compensatory damages and attorney fees award, but reverse punitive damage award.