APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this action plaintiff sought job-related disability benefits from his pension plan, administered by the City of Chattanooga Firemen’s and  Policemen’s Insurance and Pension Fund Board (“Board”). The Board, after an evidentiary hearing, voted 3 to 2 to deny benefits. An appeal was taken to the Chancery Court, and the Chancellor overturned the decision of the Board and awarded benefits. For reasons hereinafter stated we affirm and adopt from the Chancellor’s Opinion.

This complaint sought a writ of mandamus to require the City to issue a sign permit, or, alternatively, to review the action of the City in denying the application for a permit. The Chancellor found that the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals in denying the permit was arbitrary and ordered the issuance of the permit. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered i favor of Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, an unnamed party brought before the court pursuant to T.C.A. § 5 6 - 7 - 1 2 0 6 .  The question before us is whether the plaintiff, Steven Renfro, is an insured within th emeaning of Ohio Casualty's uninsured motorist (UM) policy provisions. The precise issues, whether the plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was "occupying" the covered vehicle as that term is defined in the policy under consideration. The trial court fond, on motion for summary judgment, that the plaintiff was not "occupying" the ehicle. we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a payment dispute between the plaintiff, Don Conseen, a subcontractor doing business as DC Service & Sales, and defendants Jimmy R. Reagan and Howard Sexton, doing business as Precision Construction Company, a general contractor. Plaintiff sued for payment for construction work which he testified was requested and approved by defendants, and for which he was promised payment by the defendants. An evidentiary hearing was held. The defendants presented no proof at trial. The chancellor granted plaintiff a judgment for $19, 267.45, the amount sought by the plaintiff. The defendants appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff Russell Keith Berry, brought this action on behalf of himself and his grandmother. He alleged that his grandmother, Lorena Beryl Berry, is mentally incompetent and physically ill and that the defendants, his brother and sister-in-law, gained unfair advantage of her incompetency by fraudulently taking control of all her worldly possessions. The plaintiff also alleged the defendants converted his personal property while he was incarcerated. Defendants move for summary judgment. The motion was granted and the complaint dismissed. This appeal resulted. We find there are genuine issues of material fact and revers the trial court's judgment.

The trial court allowed the plaintiff a recovery of a commission for the sale of real estate. The defendant appeals, insisting that (1) the plaintiff was not a party to the sales agency contract and thus had no standing to file this action, (2) the agency contract expired before performance, (3) the plaintiff “performed no useful work,” and (4) the record “cannot support a judgment for anyone.” Each of these issues alleges that the trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment.

At approximately 1:00 on Christmas morning of 1995, a pickup truck which had been stolen from the defendant Atlantic Soft Drink Company's business compound, crashed into the plaintiffs' residence, allegedly causing property damage and personal injury to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, in their complaint asserted that the defendant was negligent in leaving the keys inside the unlocked
truck and providing inadequate security for the parking lot where company vehicles were left. The plaintiffs also sought to impose liability on the defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The defendant moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted and the complaint dismissed. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an action to recover profits the plaintiff contractor alleges he would have made had he been allowed to construct an additional four warehouses similar in design and usage to a fifth warehouse he constructed and for which he was paid.

In this boundary line dispute the defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, insisting that the evidence established their right to the disputed area by adverse possession.