Brandon O. Gibson

This case arose after a TimberPro TL735B harvester owned by logging operator J.W. Smith was destroyed by an electrical fire, which Smith attributed to a manufacturing defect in the machine’s wiring protection. Following an earlier appeal that narrowed the claims, the trial court found that Woodland Equipment, Inc., the seller, had breached the implied warranty of merchantability by failing to install a rubber grommet or box connector on the wires. However, it ruled that Smith’s leaving the master switch on was the “last precipitating cause” of the fire, relieving Woodland of liability, while prospectively calculating damages at $330,000 based on the harvester’s pre-fire value minus salvage. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the causation ruling, holding that Smith’s conduct was a foreseeable use rather than an intervening cause and did not bar recovery under the warranty claim. It affirmed the trial court’s damage valuation and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liability

This case arose when Arkansas residents Vicki and Charles Mobley sued the State of Arkansas, its highway department, and a state employee in Tennessee circuit court, alleging negligence in a vehicle accident on the Hernando Desoto Bridge; the plaintiffs claimed the Arkansas vehicle was improperly parked without warnings on the Tennessee side of the bridge. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including sovereign immunity and comity, supported by an interagency memorandum between the states and the fact that the plaintiffs had already filed related claims in Arkansas. The trial court granted dismissal based on comity, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court reasoned that Tennessee had minimal interest in adjudicating a dispute involving only Arkansas parties, that Arkansas sovereign immunity principles were compatible with Tennessee public policy, and that extending comity promoted harmonious interstate relations and reciprocal treatment for Tennessee defendants in other states.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a long-running 2002 Tennessee proceeding to dissolve the nonprofit Pee Wee Wisdom Child Development Center, in which suspended attorney Homer Cody had previously represented parties before being disqualified and later disciplined. After multiple suspensions culminating in disbarment, Cody filed a pro se petition for contempt and sanctions in the original case, naming himself as petitioner and alleging that the receiver and other attorneys had improperly sought his disqualification and reported him to the Board of Professional Responsibility. The trial court denied the petition sua sponte, finding that Cody was never a party to the litigation, had not sought to intervene, and was attempting to circumvent his suspension from practicing law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a suspended attorney has no right to file pleadings under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 and that Cody lacked standing because he was not a party and had no valid basis to invoke the court’s contempt power in this manner.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a declaratory judgment action brought by Brian T. Sparks, a co-trustee and beneficiary of the Willard R. Sparks Revocable Trust 2004, against the managing trustee and other co-trustees. Sparks sought a detailed accounting of the trust’s affairs and a plan for liquidating and distributing its approximately $200 million in non-liquid assets, claiming he had not received sufficiently detailed information despite receiving monthly and audited financial statements for years. The probate court dismissed the petition for lack of a justiciable controversy, finding no allegations of wrongdoing and noting that Sparks, as co-trustee, already had access to extensive financial reports. The court then granted the managing trustee’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Sparks, awarding $200,000 based on inaccuracies and deficiencies in the pleadings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case or imposing sanctions.

propertyprocedure

Purchasers Kenneth and Debra Fulmer sued sellers Jeffrey and Debra Follis for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent concealment after buying a house that had undisclosed severe water damage to the east garage wall. The trial court ruled for the purchasers on all claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the purchasers could not prove reasonable reliance—an essential element of each claim—because the home inspection report had placed them on notice of possible rainwater intrusion and the suspicious board covering the wall, yet they failed to exercise ordinary diligence by invoking their contractual right to further inspect or repair the issue before closing. The appellate court therefore remanded the case for dismissal.

propertytorts & liability

This case concerns a third-party company's attempt to access court records from a 2014 minor's personal injury settlement that had been sealed by an agreed order citing the child's privacy interests. After the first appeal held that judicial records are presumptively open and required the trial court to articulate a compelling reason for continued sealing, the trial judge on remand again denied access, citing only "confidential information pertaining to the minor plaintiff" without further explanation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that neither the trial court nor the parties had identified any overriding interest sufficient to overcome the presumption of openness. It ordered that the records be made available to the petitioner and directed reassignment to a different trial judge.

proceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

This case involved a dispute between workers’ compensation insurers over liability for benefits paid to a crane operator fatally injured while working on a bridge repair project. Hartford Casualty, Ford Construction’s insurer, voluntarily paid benefits and filed a declaratory judgment action against Comanche Construction and its insurer, claiming the injured worker was a “loaned servant” under Comanche’s direction and control, so Comanche should indemnify Hartford. Comanche moved for summary judgment, arguing the facts could not support implied indemnity and that the claim was actually subrogation barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion, concluding the action was properly one for indemnity (not subrogation) and that Hartford had presented enough evidence of a borrowed-employee relationship to survive summary judgment, warranting further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved two plaintiffs, Roy Franks and Cindy Edwards, who separately sued hospitals and their billing agent under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the filing of undiscounted hospital liens after car-accident treatment misrepresented the rights and obligations involved in consumer transactions. The trial court dismissed Franks’s TCPA claim on the pleadings for failing to proceed under the Hospital Lien Act and dismissed Edwards’s claim for improper venue in Madison County. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals of both TCPA claims (as modified), reversed the venue ruling, and remanded with directions to dismiss Edwards’s claim as well, reasoning that the liens were perfected under the HLA in other counties, the alleged conduct did not qualify as a deceptive act under the TCPA, and venue for Edwards was proper only because one defendant had transacted related business in the county.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

Freddie Armstrong, a process server for the Shelby County Juvenile Court Clerk’s Office, was terminated after refusing a supervisor’s ride-along in his personal vehicle on multiple occasions to observe his declining productivity, which was standard practice, and for repeatedly questioning directives and delaying compliance. After a disciplinary hearing, he received a ten-day suspension, and upon return, his continued resistance led to termination for insubordination and failure to follow instructions. The Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board upheld the termination following a hearing, the chancery court affirmed that decision on review, and the Court of Appeals likewise affirmed. The court found ample evidence that Armstrong had refused and delayed the ride-alongs despite clear orders, properly considered his prior discipline for similar conduct, and rejected his new constitutional arguments as waived.

labor & employment

In this health care liability case, Mary Wenzler sued dentist Dr. Xiao Yu and his employer, American Family Dentistry of Memphis, PC, over treatment she received in 2016. Before filing suit, she sent pre-suit notices with HIPAA medical authorizations, but the authorizations failed to identify the specific persons or entities authorized to receive her records, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of substantial compliance with the statute, which prevented Wenzler from obtaining the 120-day extension to the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Dr. Yu, holding that the defective authorization prejudiced him by denying access to the other provider’s records, but reversed as to the dental practice because it had internal access to Dr. Yu’s records and thus suffered no prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the claim against the practice.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a dispute over whether David Doyle Miller remained a member of FDA Properties, LLC after filing for bankruptcy in 2012, and whether that event dissolved the LLC under the Tennessee Limited Liability Company Act. FDA sued for a declaration that Miller’s interest ended upon his bankruptcy or his later purported expulsion by the other members, while Miller counterclaimed that the LLC had dissolved and should be wound up, entitling him to proceeds from a subsequent property sale. The trial court ruled that Miller’s interest terminated with his bankruptcy filing but did not fully resolve the dissolution question. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that bankruptcy triggered potential dissolution under Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-245-101(a)(5), that the LLC’s operating agreement (rather than the statute’s 90-day voting exception) governed whether the business continued, and that the trial court had failed to interpret the agreement’s dissolution provisions; the case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, aspiring country music artist Douglas Benjamin Gregg sued the estate of record producer Jerry Dean Cupit and Cupit Records after paying over $346,000 under a 2007 Production Agreement and Cupit Music Agreement for the production and national promotion of three singles from his album. The agreements gave Cupit Music sole discretion over how to spend a flat $100,000 promotion fee per single and expressly stated there were no guarantees of success. The trial court ruled that Cupit breached the contract by failing to adequately promote the singles and awarded Gregg $223,069.89. The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the contract imposed no specific promotion requirements beyond the parties' agreed terms, that competent parties are bound by unambiguous written contracts absent fraud or mistake, and that courts will not rewrite such agreements to protect a party from a poor bargain. The court therefore found no breach and remanded the case.

business & regulatory

This case concerned the termination of a mother's parental rights to her infant son, Colton, after the Tennessee Department of Children's Services took custody following his birth. The child, born prematurely and exposed to opioids and other substances in utero, suffered severe withdrawal symptoms requiring extended hospitalization; the trial court had found grounds for termination including severe child abuse, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and failure to manifest an ability or willingness to assume custody. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding on one of the three statutory grounds but affirmed the termination order overall, concluding that the remaining grounds were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child's best interest. The court also rejected the mother's new arguments about alleged conflicts of interest in the child's placement and found that DCS had made reasonable efforts to assist her. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

family law

This case involves a contentious divorce between Ivan Michael Kanski and Kelly Jean Kanski, who share one minor child, with the wife granted a divorce on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct after a two-day bench trial in Williamson County Chancery Court. The husband appealed the trial court's rulings on property classification, valuation, and division, as well as alimony awards and child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions in all respects except for the determination of the husband's income for child support purposes. It vacated that portion of the order and remanded for a new calculation, finding that the record did not support imputing additional income to the husband beyond his salary, as there was no evidence of available contract work or full rental income from the duplex, and the parties had stipulated he was no longer voluntarily underemployed at trial.

family lawproperty

This case involves a retaliatory discharge claim brought by John R. DeBerry against his former employer, Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation (CEMC), alleging he was fired in retaliation for claiming workers’ compensation benefits after workplace injuries. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled in DeBerry’s favor, determining that he had established a prima facie case of retaliation and that CEMC’s stated reason for termination—willful disregard of safety instructions—was pretextual. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the trial court failed to exercise its own independent judgment, as it adopted nearly all of the plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim without issuing an oral ruling or otherwise demonstrating independent analysis. This approach risked creating an appearance that the court had not fully considered the evidence or arguments on its own, contrary to Tennessee precedent requiring trial courts to render decisions based on their own deliberations.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr., a beneficiary of two trusts, who sued the former trustee Regions Morgan Keegan Trust, three of its former employees, and the successor trustee for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in trust administration. Meersman filed the complaint in 2015 but did not issue summons until March 2016, when he attempted service by certified mail on an attorney who was not authorized to accept it and on a non-agent assistant; no alias summons was ever issued after the one-year period, and the case remained inactive until the trial court issued a dismissal notice for lack of prosecution. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the attempted service was invalid under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4, so the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over any defendant.

procedureproperty

This case arose from a 2011 car collision in Memphis in which Adriane Allen sued American Yeast, Inc. and its driver for negligence, alleging she suffered a brain injury. After mediation, the parties signed a 2016 post-mediation agreement under which American Yeast would pay Allen $300,000 in exchange for a release and dismissal of the suit with prejudice; Allen later refused to perform, prompting enforcement proceedings. The trial court ruled the agreement was an enforceable contract, denied the defendants’ motion to hold Allen in civil contempt, granted her attorney’s motion to interplead the settlement funds into court, and dismissed the case with prejudice. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that Allen forfeited any challenge to the agreement’s validity by failing to file a timely appeal from the enforcement order. It further ruled that the trial court erred by entertaining the interpleader motion because Allen had terminated her attorney’s authority, but it affirmed the denial of contempt and the dismissal with prejudice.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned the forfeiture of retirement benefits for former Tennessee judge Richard Baumgartner after his federal felony convictions for misprision of a felony, which arose from his official judicial duties between 2009 and 2010. The Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative law judge’s and chancery court’s rulings that Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-35-124 required termination of the benefits and that the statute’s application to Baumgartner did not unconstitutionally impair his pension contract, impose a retrospective law, or constitute an excessive fine. The court also upheld the suspension of benefits as of the jury’s guilty verdict in November 2012, rather than the later sentencing date, because the statute directs that benefits be stopped immediately upon initial conviction. The decision was affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Brian Ristau’s violation of La Vergne City Code section 16-115, which prohibits parking commercial trucks exceeding 15,000 pounds on city streets or adjacent private property except in limited circumstances such as loading or emergencies. After the city cited Ristau for regularly parking his 21,000-pound semi-truck at his residential home, causing alleged sidewalk damage and street debris, the municipal court found him in violation; he appealed to circuit court, arguing the ordinance violated state and federal constitutional protections including equal protection and was preempted by federal law under 49 U.S.C. § 31114. The circuit court rejected those claims and upheld the violation, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the ordinance imposed reasonable, safety-based restrictions that did not conflict with federal statutes allowing local rules or deny equal protection, and Ristau had not contested the factual violation itself.

business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

Buyers Darrin and Teresa Dixon sued sellers Alan and Teddi Chrisco after purchasing a home, alleging intentional misrepresentation, violation of the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act, and fraudulent concealment. The claims centered on the sellers’ failure to disclose the full extent of a CSX railroad right-of-way that covered part of the backyard and pool deck, as well as the planned addition of a second railroad track. The trial court dismissed the misrepresentation and statutory claims but ruled for the buyers on fraudulent concealment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals (with modification) but reversed the concealment judgment, holding that the buyers failed to present evidence of the property’s actual value at the time of purchase as required to prove damages under the benefit-of-the-bargain rule.

propertytorts & liability