Thomas A. Varlan

This case involves over fifty consolidated lawsuits filed against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by individuals and businesses near its Kingston Fossil Plant after a coal ash containment dike failed on December 22, 2008, releasing ash into the surrounding area. Plaintiffs asserted tort claims including negligence, trespass, nuisance, and strict liability, along with requests for medical monitoring and inverse condemnation, seeking damages for alleged personal injuries, emotional distress, and property harm. TVA moved for summary judgment on the tort and inverse condemnation claims, arguing that plaintiffs could not establish causation from any actionable, nondiscretionary conduct by TVA. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding insufficient evidence of causation for personal injury and emotional distress claims but determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation for the property-related claims of trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

This case involved homeowners Tracy and Kim Wilson suing their insurer State Farm after a 2008 house fire, alleging breach of contract under Coverage A (dwelling repairs) and Coverage C (loss of use/additional living expenses), plus violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and bad faith refusal to pay statute. Following a bench trial, the court found that State Farm fulfilled its obligations under Coverage A and did not violate the TCPA or bad faith statute, but failed to meet its obligations under Coverage C, awarding the plaintiffs $33,000 on that claim and denying prejudgment interest. The decision rested on comparisons of repair estimates from contractors and State Farm's representative, policy terms, and the lack of evidence supporting the other claims.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves over fifty lawsuits filed against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by individuals and businesses affected by the December 22, 2008, coal ash spill resulting from the failure of a containment dike at TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant. Plaintiffs alleged various tort claims, including negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, trespass, nuisance, and strict liability, along with requests for compensatory damages, medical monitoring, and inverse condemnation relief. TVA filed motions for summary judgment on all tort claims, contending that plaintiffs failed to show the dike failure was caused by nondiscretionary conduct. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, relying on its prior ruling that the discretionary function doctrine protects TVA's policy-grounded decisions but does not bar claims challenging other conduct.

environmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose from the 2008 coal ash dike failure at the TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant, in which nearby residential property owners brought consolidated class action tort claims against engineering contractors WorleyParsons and Geosyntec for services they provided to TVA between 2004 and 2007 regarding ash pond stability, seepage, and drainage. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, or alternatively for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed WorleyParsons and Geosyntec, reasoning that the contractors were shielded from liability under the government contractor defense established in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. and related Sixth Circuit precedents, as their work was performed pursuant to TVA's directions and policy decisions.

environmentpropertytorts & liabilityfederal power

This case is a civil forfeiture action in which the United States sought to forfeit approximately $58,000 in two bank accounts, alleging the funds were involved in monetary transactions with proceeds of wire fraud in violation of the money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957. Claimants filed a verified claim asserting ownership but did not file an answer or Rule 12 motion as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(b) within the specified deadlines after publication of notice. After a hearing on the claimants' request for relief from default, the court denied an extension of time to file an answer and directed the clerk to enter default against the claimants. The core reasoning was that claimants had received adequate notice of the filing requirements, had nearly eight months to act or seek relief before the government moved for default, offered no sufficient excuse such as excusable neglect, and that procedural defaults are not automatically excused for pro se litigants.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute among shareholders of three Tennessee corporations that manage cabin rentals in Sevier County resorts. Plaintiffs Matthew and Rodney Thompson, majority owners, sued defendant Kenneth Hayes, a minority shareholder, alleging that his letters to cabin owners breached letters of understanding by encouraging lower management fees, suggesting alternative companies, and disclosing confidential financial information; they also claimed defamation in one letter and sought a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. After removal to federal court and a hearing, the court denied the motion for injunctive relief. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits, as the defamation claim faced a truth defense under Tennessee law and the other claims did not satisfy the high standard required for such extraordinary relief; the motion to strike plaintiffs' reply was denied as moot.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a wrongful death action under Tennessee law brought by the family of Lee Bowman against his employer Bulkmatic Transport Co. after employee Jeffrey Ritchie allowed the unlicensed Bowman to drive a company truck, resulting in a fatal rollover accident. The jury found Ritchie's conduct willful and wanton, assigned 65% fault to him (imputed to the employer), 10% to the company, and 25% to Bowman, and awarded $275,000 in damages. The court entered judgment holding the company liable for $206,250 after determining that, under precedents such as Ball v. Whitaker, the employer could be vicariously liable for the employee's willful and wanton acts regardless of whether they occurred in the course and scope of employment. The opinion addressed post-trial motions and jury instructions on agency and respondeat superior principles, ultimately upholding the verdict and comparative fault allocation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after officers searched the passenger compartment of a car during a traffic stop, finding a gun and drugs following the driver's arrest for lack of a license. The search occurred before the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, which narrowed the circumstances allowing vehicle searches incident to arrest. The court agreed the search violated the Fourth Amendment under Gant and that Gant applied retroactively, but it denied the motion to suppress the evidence. The core reasoning was that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officers reasonably relied on then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent permitting such searches.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, defendant Beverly Stokely was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). She moved to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of her home, arguing that officers lacked valid consent from her husband because he had been illegally detained in handcuffs without reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the illegal detention vitiated the subsequent consent. The district court reviewed the government's objections, additional briefing, and hearing evidence, making findings on the timeline of the arrest, detention, and consent process, including that officers had no knowledge of marijuana at the residence before obtaining consent.

criminal lawprocedure

This ERISA case concerned long-term disability benefits under the Pepsi Bottling Group plan. After the plaintiff began receiving monthly LTD benefits following a work-related injury, he also obtained a workers' compensation settlement of $35,095.34, and the plan administrator offset the full amount against future benefits by reducing payments to zero until recovery was complete. Applying the arbitrary and capricious standard because the plan granted Sedgwick discretionary authority, the court reviewed the administrative record and upheld the offset as the product of a deliberate reasoning process supported by substantial evidence. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the record, granted the defendants' motion for entry of judgment, and dismissed the case.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death claim filed by Charles Parks on behalf of Laurel S. Parks, who died after her vehicle crashed in a highway construction zone. The complaint alleges that defendant Dennis Thompson, driving a tractor-trailer for Daily Express, Inc., negligently shifted into the left lane, forcing Parks off the road, though her vehicle never contacted the truck. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of causation or breach of duty, while plaintiff sought to amend the complaint and extend time for expert testimony on the standard of care. The court addressed multiple procedural motions, including extensions and reconsideration, ultimately evaluating whether genuine issues of material fact existed based on witness statements and the lack of expert support. It concluded that plaintiff could not establish negligence or causation under the facts presented, granting summary judgment to the defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after police stopped the vehicle he was driving and discovered a holster inside and a handgun on the ground nearby. The defendant moved to suppress the handgun, arguing that the investigative stop was an unconstitutional seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion and that the gun should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. The court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo, overruled the defendant's objections, and adopted the recommendation to suppress the holster but deny suppression of the handgun. The core reasoning was that the handgun lacked any direct evidentiary link to the defendant or the stop, making its discovery sufficiently attenuated from any potential Fourth Amendment violation.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Kyle Meridieth seeking judicial review of the Department of Labor's decision regarding his entitlement to benefits under Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act for asbestos-related lung disease. The court examined whether the plaintiff's prior state workers' compensation settlement and tort suit settlements required coordination with his federal benefits, resulting in a surplus that must be offset before benefits are paid. The Department of Labor determined that the workers' compensation settlement covered only the single illness of asbestosis, which is a covered condition under the Act, and that the plaintiff's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was not work-related. The court upheld this determination, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the settlement was solely for the covered illness and that coordination was properly applied.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves multiple consolidated lawsuits against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) arising from the December 2008 dike failure and coal ash spill at the Swan Pond facilities of TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant. Plaintiffs brought tort claims and, in some cases, inverse condemnation claims, seeking compensatory and punitive damages along with jury trials. TVA moved to dismiss the tort claims for lack of justiciability under the discretionary function doctrine and failure to state a claim, to dismiss punitive damages claims, and to strike jury demands on grounds that Congress had not waived sovereign immunity for such remedies against TVA. The court examined TVA's creation and authority under the TVA Act as a federal instrumentality, principles of sovereign immunity, and precedents barring punitive damages and jury trials absent express congressional authorization.

environmentfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Ronald A. Brandon's claims against defendant Financial Accounts Services Team, Inc. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that the defendant improperly reported the date of first delinquency on a debt and continued to communicate that information on credit reports after the allowable period. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the claims were time-barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations because the initial alleged violation occurred in January 2008, more than a year before the April 2009 complaint was filed. The court denied the motion, holding that separate collection letters and communications sent by the defendant within the one-year limitations period constituted distinct potential violations under the FDCPA. The reasoning focused on the statutory text, which ties the limitations period to the date each violation occurs rather than the date of discovery or the initial underlying error, allowing claims based on post-April 10, 2008 communications to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a claim for $1,000,000 in life insurance benefits under a policy issued by Transamerica to Mr. Yarnell, with an irrevocable trust for his children as beneficiary. After the insured's death, Transamerica denied the claim, asserting that the policy had lapsed for nonpayment of premiums in 2006 and that a later reinstatement was void due to material misrepresentations in the reinstatement application about the insured's health history. The plaintiff sued Transamerica and SunTrust for breach of the policy and related negligence in policy servicing and notifications. The court previously dismissed all negligence claims. On summary judgment, Transamerica argued there was no genuine dispute that the lapse occurred and the reinstatement was invalid under Tennessee law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Everett Chattman, an African American shipping coordinator at Toho Tenax America, who alleged race discrimination under Title VII, the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after receiving a final written warning for a workplace horseplay incident that rendered him ineligible for promotion. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice. It found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote or to show that the company's stated reasons for the discipline and restructuring decisions were pretextual, as independent investigations by unbiased decision-makers supported the actions taken.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerns a plaintiff's claims against Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. and its employee for injuries sustained when a leg brace failed, causing a fall and broken leg; the claims include negligence in design, manufacture, inspection, fitting, and warnings, as well as strict product liability and breach of implied warranties under Tennessee law. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the claims were subject to the requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. The court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because orthotists are not health care practitioners under the statute and their work does not bear a substantial relationship to medical treatment as defined in relevant precedent.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In Sutton v. Bell, death-sentenced inmate Gary Wayne Sutton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Tennessee first-degree murder conviction and capital sentence on twenty-five claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate brain damage and other mitigation evidence, evidentiary admissions, jury selection and instruction errors, Confrontation Clause violations, and various constitutional challenges to the death penalty. The district court denied the petition in full after reviewing the state court record. Applying the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the court held that many claims were procedurally defaulted, that the state courts' adjudication of the remaining claims was not objectively unreasonable, and that Sutton failed to establish actual innocence or other grounds for relief.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Sharp, the defendant was charged with multiple federal firearms violations and moved to suppress statements he made to officers during the execution of search warrants at his home, arguing that the statements were obtained without Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the motion to suppress. The court found that the defendant was not in custody when seated at his kitchen table or walking the property with officers, and that the officers did not subject him to questioning or its functional equivalent at those times. Accordingly, the statements about the pistol's ownership were admissible because Miranda warnings were not required.

criminal lawprocedureguns