Law
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Tennessee Tort of “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Tennessee has the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress which is an important cause of action that allows a plaintiff to recover damages when the conduct of the defendant is outrageous. There are very specific requirements for a plaintiff to be able to prove this cause of action in court. In order to support a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the following elements are required:

The elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim are that the defendant’s conduct was (1) intentional or reckless, (2) so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society, and (3) resulted in serious mental injury to the plaintiff. Regarding the first element, the law is clear in Tennessee and elsewhere that either intentional or reckless conduct on the part of the defendant will suffice to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress.

………………………………..

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE DEFENSE LITIGATION HERE

insurancedefense
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Tennessee Supreme Court Overturns COA Dedmon case – Key Decision for Personal Injury cases on Medical Bill Evidence

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued a very important decision recently on the appeal in the Dedmon case.  Many people have been waiting on this decision from the plaintiff’s side and the defendant’s side.  The Dedmon case was the case where the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that defendants, in personal injury cases, could introduce evidence of the discounted amounts accepted by health providers or paid by insurance companies.  I previously blogged on this prior ruling here.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the key part of the prior Tennessee Court of Appeals decision today.  The key part in the new case (and a good summary of the current status of the law on this issue) is the following:

In sum, we hold that the definition of “reasonable charges” under the Hospital Lien Act set forth in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., 459 S.W.3d 33 (Tenn. 2014), does not apply directly to determinations of “reasonable medical expenses” in personal injury cases; the West definition of “reasonable charges” is limited in application to interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act……

………………….

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE DEFENSE LITIGATION HERE

will
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Impact of Divorce on Terms in a Will that Benefit the Former Spouse in Tennessee

/0 Comments/in , /by

When a Will is executed by someone, and then they are later divorced, the divorce revokes any benefits that were going to go to the former spouse under the Will.  This revocation is automatic and by statute that was passed by the Tennessee legislature.  T.C.A. § 32-1-202(a) provides as follows:

(a) If after executing a will the testator is divorced or the testator’s marriage annulled, the divorce or annulment revokes any disposition or appointment of property made by the will to the former spouse, any provision conferring a general or special power of appointment on the former spouse, and any nomination of the former spouse as executor, trustee, conservator or guardian, unless the will expressly provides otherwise.

………………………………..

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE WILLS AND ESTATES HERE

Law
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment Claims in Tennessee – General Overview

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment claims are both recognized in Tennessee under state law and federal Law (pursuant to Title VII).  These are very significant claims often involving the harassment of a female by a male supervisor or co-worker.  The standards for an employer’s liability are different under each of those scenarios (this will be discussed in a subsequent blog post on this topic).  It is important to note that Tennessee courts often look to federal law for guidance on interpretation of Tennessee’s own discrimination statutes, because they are so similar.

……………………….

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE DEFENSE LITIGATION HERE

will
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Should You Add Your Children to Your Financial Accounts When You Need Financial Assistance Later in Life?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A significant number of older individuals in Tennessee add one or more of their children to their bank accounts to help them manage their finances. They often do this as joint owners with right of survivorship in order to have them help to pay the bills and to take care of other matters late in life. This can be an option that sounds very appealing. However, doing this is a major problem and can cause devastating financial consequences that are completely unintended.

When someone adds another person as a joint owner on the account, any judgments that the other person obtains against them, could lead to collection efforts against your bank account. Once the other person is an owner, they are an owner of your account for all purposes. For instance, if one of your children gets into a serious car accident and severely injures or kills someone else, but they have insufficient insurance coverage to pay for the damages, then the injured party could obtain a judgment against them. They could then execute against your account to pay the judgment.

…………………………..

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE WILLS AND ESTATES HERE

insurancedefense
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

There is No Claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress on Solely Property Damage Loss Cases in Tennessee

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The Tennessee Court of Appeals in Richard Lane, et al v. Estate of Gary K. Leggett, No. M2016-00448-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1176982 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) discussed whether a Plaintiff can recover for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress for a claim that involves only property damage. In this case, the Plaintiff owned a business in White House, Tennessee. The Defendant rear-ended a vehicle and left the roadway at a high rate of speed, causing his car to run into the building that contained the Plaintiff’s business. The vehicle struck a gas meter which resulted in a significant fire and caused a complete loss of the Plaintiff’s business. The Plaintiff was not actually at the property at the time of the loss, but he returned shortly thereafter and witnessed the fire at his business.

…………………………

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE DEFENSE LITIGATION HERE

will
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Can an Appointed Executor Contest the Will They Offered For Probate in Tennessee?

/0 Comments/in /by

A really interesting question was addressed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals recently on whether an executor who submitted a Will for probate and was appointed as executor can subsequently contest the terms of the Will. The Tennessee Court of Appeals in the case of In Re: Estate of Ellra Donald Bostic, No. E2016-00553-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 7105213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) dealt with the specific question of whether an appointed executor can contest the Will that is being probated.

The Court noted that the legal doctrine that applies is “estoppel”. The reason is because “executors, as fiduciaries, owe a duty of undivided loyalty to the Estate and must deal with the beneficiaries in the utmost good faith.” In re: Estate of Wallace, 829 S.W.2d 696, 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

…………………………………

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE WILLS AND ESTATES HERE

Law
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Piercing the Corporate Veil in Tennessee – When Can a Judgment Against a Corporation be the Personal Responsibility of the Shareholders?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently decided a case (F&M Marketing Services, Inc. v. Christenberry Trucking and Farm, Inc., E2016-00205-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 417223_(Tenn. Ct. App. 2017)) involving a request to pierce the corporate veil of a Defendant after the Plaintiff got a substantial judgment against that Defendant for breach of contract. The total judgment in this case was $375,524.29. After the initial judgment was entered, the Plaintiff learned that the Defendant had no assets to satisfy the judgment. As a result, the Plaintiff petitioned the trial to hold the primary shareholder of the Defendant personally liable for the judgment against the Defendant corporation. The Tennessee Court of Appeals did a good job discussing the circumstances when an individual shareholder can be found personally responsible for a judgment against a corporation in Tennessee.

The Court noted that the most important case outlining when it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil in Tennessee is the FDIC v. Allen, 584 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. Tenn. 1984) decision.

…………………………………

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE DEFENSE LITIGATION HERE

insurancedefense
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

Does Employer’s Admission of Vicarious Liability for Actions of Employee Insulate the Employer from Other Causes of Action?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently dealt with an issue that has not been previously discussed by Tennessee Appellate courts in Melanie Jones, Individually and on behalf of Matthew H. V. Shavonna Rachelle Windham, et al., No. W2015-00973-COA-R10-CV, 2016 WL 943722 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).  The question deal with the situation where an employer and employee are both sued due to the actions of the employee in causing an automobile accident (while working for the employer).  The employer, in the Answer to Complaint, admitted they were vicariously liable for the actions of the employee.  The question, therefore, was whether the plaintiff could still proceed with other claims against the employer including negligent hiring, negligent retention and negligence per se for their own independent negligent actions when they had already admitted vicarious liability for the actual accident.

For some reason, the plaintiff wanted to pursue various individual cause of actions directly against the employer in this case.

…………………………………………

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE DEFENSE LITIGATION HERE

will
Jason A. Lee, Esq.

When is a Surviving Spouse Required to Make Election to Obtain Elective Share Against the Estate in Tennessee?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A surviving spouse has the ability to obtain an elective share (see prior post describing the details of an elective share under Tennessee law) of a decedent’s property by filing a notice with the court.  The surviving spouse is required to file a petition for an elective share within nine months after the date of the death of their spouse.  T.C.A. § 31-4-102(a)(1) provides as follows:

(a)(1) The surviving spouse may elect to take the spouse’s elective share in decedent’s property by filing in the court and mailing or delivering to the personal representative, if any, a petition for the elective share within nine (9) months after the date of death.

Additionally, an extension of the 9-month time period is allowed if there is litigation pending about the title of certain property such that an elective share determination could not be made with sufficient information.

…………………………..

READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT TENNESSEE WILLS AND ESTATES HERE