IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

December 10, 2015 Session

JAMES R. STERCHI, JR. v. LOUIS B. SAVARD, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF L. BASIL SAVARD, SR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradley County

No. V12500 Don R. Ash, Senior Judge

No. E2015-00928-COA-R3-CV-FILED-MARCH 11, 2016

This appeal concerns a conflict of law choice between Tennessee and Florida law. James 

R. Sterchi, Jr. (―Mr. Sterchi‖) sued L. Basil Savard (―Mr. Savard‖) in the Circuit Court 

for Bradley County (―the Trial Court‖) for the wrongful death of Mr. Sterchi’s mother 

Rosalind Savard (―Mrs. Savard‖) in a car accident in Florida.

1

 Mr. Savard filed a motion 

for summary judgment. Florida law prevents Mr. Sterchi from pursuing his claim while

Tennessee law does not. All interested parties were domiciled in Tennessee. The Trial 

Court held that Florida law applies and granted Mr. Savard’s motion for summary 

judgment. Mr. Sterchi filed an appeal to this Court. We hold that under ―the most 

significant relationship‖ test as adopted by our Supreme Court in Hataway v. McKinley, 

830 S.W.2d 53 (Tenn. 1992), Tennessee has the more significant relationship to the 

occurrence and parties in this case, and, therefore, Tennessee substantive law applies to 

Mr. Sterchi’s wrongful death action. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed;

Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JOHN W.

MCCLARTY, joined, and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ., concurred with a separate 

concurring opinion.

Ronald J. Berke, Jeremy M. Cothern, and Charles A. Flynn, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for 

the appellant, James R. Sterchi, Jr.

 

1 Mr. Savard died of natural causes on December 18, 2014. Louis B. Savard, Jr. (―Executor‖), Mr. 

Sterchi’s half-brother and the son of Mr. and Mrs. Savard, later was substituted as executor of Mr. 

Savard’s estate.
-2-

Denise VanNess (Florida counsel), Crystal River, Florida, for the appellant, James R. 

Sterchi, Jr.

Richard W. Bethea and John H. Lawrence, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, 

Louis B. Savard, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of L. Basil Savard, Sr.

OPINION

Background

The material background facts of this case are uncontested and brief. Mr. 

Sterchi is the adult son of Mrs. Savard. Executor is the son of Mrs. Savard and Mr. 

Savard, and thus is Mr. Sterchi’s half-brother. This case has its origins in a 2012 car 

accident that, tragically, left Mrs. Savard dead.

Mr. Sterchi was born in Tennessee and has been a resident and domiliciary 

of the state for most of his life. Mr. and Mrs. Savard, married in the 1960s, lived in 

Tennessee for a total of at least thirty years. The Savards moved to Florida in the 1980s. 

In 2005 or 2006, the Savards moved back to Tennessee. In late 2011, the Savards went 

on what was intended to be an extended vacation in Florida of perhaps up to 30 days in 

length. On the morning of January 1, 2012, the Savards attended church in Stanford, 

Florida. Following church, the Savards had lunch with friends at a restaurant. After 

lunch, the Savards began the trip back to their rented condominium. Mr. Savard drove. 

At one point, Mr. Savard lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a utility pole. Mr. 

Savard sustained injuries in the crash but survived. Unfortunately, Mrs. Savard died from 

her injuries sustained in the wreck.

In June 2012, Mr. Sterchi sued Mr. Savard in the Trial Court for the 

wrongful death of his mother, Mrs. Savard. More procedural history not relevant to the 

issues on appeal followed.2 At issue below, and now on appeal, was which state’s law 

applies. Under Tennessee law, an heir may bring a wrongful death suit in his or her own 

name. In Florida, only the personal representative of the decedent may bring suit. 

Tennessee also allows recovery for adult children based on loss of consortium, whereas 

Florida does not when a spouse survives the decedent. In December 2014, Mr. Savard

filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court undertook a ―most significant 

relationship‖ analysis and determined that Florida law governed the action. In March 

2015, the Trial Court entered an order granting Mr. Savard’s motion for summary 

judgment. Mr. Sterchi timely appealed to this Court.

 

2

This Court declined Mr. Savard’s request for an interlocutory appeal.
-3-

Discussion

We restate and consolidate the issues raised by the parties on appeal as one 

dispositive issue: whether Tennessee or Florida law governs Mr. Sterchi’s wrongful death 

action arising out of the Savards’ accident in Florida.

With regard to summary judgments, our Supreme Court explained in Rye v. 

Women’s Care Center of Memphis, MPLLC:

Summary judgment is appropriate when ―the pleadings, depositions, 

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 

and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.‖ 

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment de novo, without a presumption of correctness. Bain v. 

Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997); see also Abshure v. Methodist 

Healthcare–Memphis Hosp., 325 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tenn. 2010). In doing 

so, we make a fresh determination of whether the requirements of Rule 56 

of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. Estate of 

Brown, 402 S.W.3d 193, 198 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Hughes v. New Life Dev. 

Corp., 387 S.W.3d 453, 471 (Tenn. 2012)).

***

[I]n Tennessee, as in the federal system, when the moving party does not 

bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden of 

production either (1) by affirmatively negating an essential element of the 

nonmoving party’s claim or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving 

party’s evidence at the summary judgment stage is insufficient to establish 

the nonmoving party’s claim or defense. We reiterate that a moving party 

seeking summary judgment by attacking the nonmoving party’s evidence 

must do more than make a conclusory assertion that summary judgment is 

appropriate on this basis. Rather, Tennessee Rule 56.03 requires the 

moving party to support its motion with ―a separate concise statement of 

material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine 

issue for trial.‖ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. ―Each fact is to be set forth in a 

separate, numbered paragraph and supported by a specific citation to the 

record.‖ Id. When such a motion is made, any party opposing summary 

judgment must file a response to each fact set forth by the movant in the 
-4-

manner provided in Tennessee Rule 56.03. ―[W]hen a motion for summary 

judgment is made [and] ... supported as provided in [Tennessee Rule 56],‖ 

to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party ―may not rest upon the 

mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading,‖ but must respond, and by 

affidavits or one of the other means provided in Tennessee Rule 56, ―set 

forth specific facts‖ at the summary judgment stage ―showing that there is a 

genuine issue for trial.‖ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. The nonmoving party 

―must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as 

to the material facts.‖ Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586, 106 

S.Ct. 1348. The nonmoving party must demonstrate the existence of 

specific facts in the record which could lead a rational trier of fact to find in 

favor of the nonmoving party. If a summary judgment motion is filed 

before adequate time for discovery has been provided, the nonmoving party 

may seek a continuance to engage in additional discovery as provided in 

Tennessee Rule 56.07. However, after adequate time for discovery has 

been provided, summary judgment should be granted if the nonmoving 

party’s evidence at the summary judgment stage is insufficient to establish 

the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 

56.04, 56.06. The focus is on the evidence the nonmoving party comes 

forward with at the summary judgment stage, not on hypothetical evidence 

that theoretically could be adduced, despite the passage of discovery 

deadlines, at a future trial.

Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250, 264-65 (Tenn. 

2015) (italics in original).

In the present case, we are presented with an apparent conflict of laws. 

Under Tennessee law, Mr. Sterchi, as the adult child of the decedent, may pursue his 

wrongful death claim. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-5-106 and 20-5-107(d) (Supp. 2015) (the

latter stating ―[n]othing in this section shall be construed to prevent the institution of an 

action by a child with respect to the death of a parent.‖ Under Florida law, however, 

there is no basis for an independent right to bring suit. There, only the personal 

representative may bring suit. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.20; See Florida Emergency 

Physicians-Kang & Associates, M.D., P.A. v. Parker, 800 So.2d 631, 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. 

App. 2001). Executor suggests that Mr. Sterchi simply could have acted with more 

alacrity to be named the administrator in order to bring the suit in compliance with 

Florida law. Mr. Sterchi argues in response that, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-15-706, he 

likely would had to have proven malfeasance in order to replace the administrator, and 

that his half-brother never would have agreed to sue his own father as evidenced by this 

lawsuit. In our judgment, the difference amounts to a conflict of laws.
-5-

Having concluded that a conflict of laws exists, we now must decide which 

state’s law—Florida’s or Tennessee’s—applies. In 1992, our Supreme Court repudiated 

the rigid, old lex loci—or law of the place—doctrine and instead adopted a balancing test 

based on a state’s more significant relationship. Our Supreme Court articulated the test 

courts are to apply in conflicts of law scenarios as follows:

Given the difference between comparative fault in Arkansas and 

contributory negligence in Tennessee, as well as the difference between the 

wrongful death statutes, we conclude that there is a conflict between 

Arkansas and Tennessee law which is a necessary predicate to deciding 

which state’s law should govern this wrongful death action.

***

We agree with the great majority of other jurisdictions that the 

doctrine of lex loci is outmoded because of changes in society, causing a 

consequential development of modern law. The lex loci doctrine had its 

conceptual foundation in the common-law vested rights doctrine, which 

was founded on respect for a state’s territorial sanctity. See Traveler’s 

Indemnity Co. v. Lake, 594 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991), Winters, supra, 481 

S.W.2d at 756. We observe that in today’s modern industrial world, the 

vested rights theory, with its emphasis on territorial boundaries, has little 

relevance. ―State and national boundaries are of less significance today by 

reason of the increased mobility of our population and of the increasing 

tendency of men to conduct their affairs across boundary lines.‖ 

Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law, ch. 7 at 413 (1971) (Introductory 

Note). See also Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d at 317 (Tex. 1979).

***

Accordingly, we adopt the ―most significant relationship‖ approach 

of §§ 6, 145, 146, and 175 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws

(1971), which provides:

§ 145. The General Principle

(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an 

issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state, 

which with respect to that issue, has the most significant 

relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the 

principles stated in § 6.
-6-

(2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the 

principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue 

include:

(a) the place where the injury occurred,

(b) the place where the conduct causing the 

injury occurred,

(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of 

incorporation and place of business of the 

parties,

(d) the place where the relationship, if any, 

between the parties is centered.

These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative 

importance with respect to the particular issue.

§ 146. Personal Injuries

In an action for personal injury, the local law of the state 

where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities 

of the parties, unless, with respect to the particular issue, 

some other state has a more significant relationship under the 

principles stated in § 6 to the occurrence and the parties, in 

which event the local law of the other state will be applied.

§ 175. Right of Action for Death

In an action for wrongful death, the local law of the state 

where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities 

of the parties unless, with respect to the particular issue, some 

other state has a more significant relationship under the 

principles stated in § 6 to the occurrence and the parties, in 

which event the local law of the other state will be applied.

The rule we adopt today shall be applied to (1) all cases tried or 

retried after the date of this opinion, and (2) all cases on appeal in which the 

conflicts of law issue was raised on a timely basis in the litigation.
-7-

Having adopted the ―most significant relationship‖ approach of the 

Restatement (Second), we return to the facts of this case to determine 

whether Arkansas or Tennessee law should be applied.

The only contact the parties had with the State of Arkansas was that 

the injury occurred in that state. Both the decedent and the defendant were 

life-long residents of Tennessee and neither owned any property in 

Arkansas. The parties’ relationship was centered in Tennessee because the 

relationship was formed and continued as a result of the decedent’s 

participation in the scuba class taught at Memphis State by the defendant. 

We think the fact that the injury occurred in Arkansas was merely a 

fortuitous circumstance, and that the State of Arkansas has no interest in 

applying its laws to this dispute between Tennessee residents. Under the 

facts here presented, we conclude that although the injury occurred in 

Arkansas, the State of Tennessee has a more significant relationship to the 

occurrence and the parties under the factors and contacts set out in §§ 6 and 

145 of Restatement (Second).

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is 

remanded to the trial court with instructions that the law of Tennessee 

should be applied to the plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful death. The costs of 

this appeal are taxed to the defendant-appellee.

Hataway, 830 S.W.2d at 55, 57, 59-60. (Footnotes omitted).

Mr. Sterchi argues that this case is a straightforward application of 

Hataway. In other words, all of the interested parties were domiciled in Tennessee, and, 

while the car accident that killed Mrs. Savard fortuitously – in other words, by chance -

happened to occur in Florida, Tennessee has the more significant relationship to the 

occurrence and parties. Executor argues that the present case is distinguishable from 

Hataway. Primarily, Executor points to the fact that the Savards were in Florida for an 

extended vacation, not merely a quick diving expedition as in Hataway. Executor also 

posits a difference in public policy interest ramifications between accidents on Florida’s 

roads as opposed to the death, however regrettable, of someone in a scuba diving class.

Under Hataway, there is a rebuttable presumption in wrongful death cases 

that the law of the place of the injury applies. This would favor Florida in the present 

case. Next we consider the contacts from the Second Restatement. The injury and the 

conduct causing the injury obviously occurred in Florida, and these contacts favor 

Florida. The Savard family was domiciled in Tennessee, and the center of the Savards’ 
-8-

relationship—their marriage—was based in Tennessee, contacts which naturally favor 

Tennessee.

Mr. Sterchi takes the position that Florida has zero interest in a wrongful 

death lawsuit between Tennessee residents. We disagree with this broad statement. 

Florida has an interest in maintaining the safety of its roads. The question, however, is 

not zero-sum. While both Tennessee and Florida have interests here, the decisive issue is 

which state has the more significant relationship.

In our judgment, Mr. Sterchi has demonstrated that Tennessee has the more 

significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties and, therefore, the presumption 

that the law of the place of the injury must be applied is successfully rebutted. This case 

is analogous to Hataway, which controls. Although the Savards intended to stay in 

Florida for an extended vacation, their excursion in Florida still was temporary even 

though deliberate. They remained domiciled in Tennessee. In Hataway, the student trip 

to Arkansas was brief, but also deliberate. The scuba class was not held in Arkansas by 

happenstance but deliberately so. In both Hataway and the present case, the parties 

intentionally left their place of domicile to travel temporarily to destinations in other 

jurisdictions where the tragic accidents occurred. 

In Lemons v. Cloer, 206 S.W.3d 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), a bus and train 

collided in Tennessee just north of the Georgia state line. That opinion, as relevant here, 

reads:

In the instant case, all of the children on the bus were residents of 

Georgia. The bus driver was also a resident of Georgia. The School 

District is a Georgia governmental entity. The School District’s 

relationships with the plaintiffs were clearly centered in Georgia. This was 

a Georgia bus picking up children living in Georgia and transporting them 

to a Georgia school. The contacts with Tennessee are the following: the 

accident occurred in Tennessee; Tennessee emergency and medical 

personnel responded to the accident; injured parties were taken to 

Tennessee hospitals; and the train engineer and conductor, who also filed 

personal injury claims in the trial court, were residents of Tennessee. When 

all of this is considered, we conclude that Georgia had a ―more significant 

relationship‖ to the parties and events at issue. See Restatement (Second) 

of Conflict of Laws § 145(2). This is not to say that Tennessee did not 

have a relationship to the parties and this school bus/freight train collision; 

but, in our judgment, Tennessee’s relationship is less significant than that 

of Georgia.
-9-

Lemons, 206 S.W.3d at 67.

Lemons stands for the proposition that both states in a conflict of laws 

scenario may have interests in the matter, but one state’s interests may outweigh the other 

state’s interests. In the present case, both Tennessee and Florida have interests or 

contacts. Tennessee has an interest in a wrongful death lawsuit between its domiciles. 

Florida has an interest in preserving safety on its roads. Applying the binding precedent 

of Hataway as we must, we conclude that Tennessee’s interest and relationship is greater. 

We hold that Tennessee substantive law applies to this case, and that the 

Trial Court erred in granting summary judgment to Executor. We reverse and remand 

this case for further proceedings before the Trial Court.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Trial Court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to 

the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and for collection of 

the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the Appellee, Louis B. Savard, 

Jr., as Executor of the Estate of L. Basil Savard, Sr.

______________________________________ 

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE