T he T en n. R

. A p p
. P

. 9 ap p l i ca t i o n a nd an swe r f ull y s et fo rth t he p arti es ’ p o si tio n s a nd t he m aterial fac t s. 1 T her efore, pur s uan t t o T enn
. R. Ap p. P

. 2, we s us pend t he appl i cat i on o f T enn
. R. Ap p. P

. 24, 25, an d 29 , an d f i nd ora l
a r g u m e n t to b e un n e c e ssa ry p u rs u a n t t o T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 5 (c ). See H am m ock v
. Sum nerCo. , N o. 0 1 A 0 1

- 9 7 1 0

- C V

- 0 0 6 0 0 , 19 9 7 W L 74 9 4 6 1 (T enn. C t

. A p p
. D ec. 5 , 1 9 9 7 ) (N o T enn. R

. A p p
. P

. 11 ap p l i cat i o n f i l ed ). 

### IN THE COU RT OF APPEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE

HAR LAN THOM AS ET AL 

### . v. J OHN CARPENTER ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for CheathamCounty No. 5508 G eorgeSexton, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00993-COA-R 9-CV - F iled Jun e 29, 2005

This interlocutory

appea l involves a plaintiff who w as injured while he lping the c ontrac tor building his house cut a boa

rd. The sole issue conce rns whethe r the c ontrac tor i s eq u i t ab l y estopped fr om asserting the statute of limitations as a defe nse to the plaintiff’s claims. The trial c ourt determined that, by pay ing the plaintiff $10,000 for his m edica l expenses, the contra ctor’s insura nce c ompany induced the pla intiff to believe the matter would be se ttled amicably wit hout the nece ssityof a lawsuit. Thus, the trial court denied the contra ctor’s motion for summary judgme nt, but gr anted the contra ctor a n interlocutory appea l pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur with the trial court that an interloc utory

appea l will prevent needle ss, e x pensive and protrac ted litigation. We also ag ree that summary judgme nt is not appropriate be cause g enuine issues of material fa ct exist . Howeve r, the trier of fac t should decide whe ther the $10,00 0 pay ment induced the pla intiff to believe that the ma tte r w ou ld b e se ttl e d a mic ably , a nd, th erefo re , w e va c a te thetria l c ou rt ’s or de r t o th e e xten t it make s sp e c if

ic fi nd ing s w ith re g ardto the plaint if f’ s b e lie fs ste mmi ng fr om the $1 0, 00 0 p a y me nt. 1 Tenn. R. App . P . 9 Interlocutor y Appeal; Jud gm ent of the Circuit Court

Aff irm ed in Par t and Rever sed in Part
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., W I L L I AM B. C A IN , and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., delivere d the op ini on of

the c ou rt

. J ohn R. Tarpley

and Samuel L . J ackson, N ashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppell an ts, J ohn Carpente r and John C arpe nter Home s, I nc.
Jame s B ry a n M os e le y , Na sh vi ll e, T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e s, Ha

rl a n T ho ma s a ndKi mbe rl y Th oma s.T en n. C t

. A p p
. R

. 1 0 p ro vid es: 2

T h e C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f a ll ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in t h e c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri a l c o u rt b y m em o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no prec edent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y mem o randum opi ni on, i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , ” shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e c ited or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.

-2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 2

I.
Har lan and Kimberly

Thomas dec ided to build a new house in Cheatham County and hire d J ohn Carpente r and John Carpenter Homes, I nc. as the ir g ener al contra ctor. On October 8, 2002, M r. T h o m as wa s v i s i t i n g t h e w o rks i t e w h en M r. C arp en t eras k ed fo r h i s as s i s t an ce i n cu t t i n g a bo ard . M r. Th oma s h e ld the bo ardwh ile Mr . Ca rp e nte r c ut i t wi th a c ir c ula r sa w. At so me po int , Mr. Thomas chang ed positions. When Mr

. Carpente r restarted the saw, it jumped an d cu t M r. Thomas’s hand. Mr . Thomas was taken to the hospital w here surg ery was perf ormed to repa ir the damag e. Mr. Carpe nter turne d th e m at t er o ver to his insuranc e compa ny , Z urich Nor th America n I nsuranc e Company

(“Zurich” ). A fe w week s afte r the a ccide nt, Mr. Thomas contac ted Andre w Th omp so n, the c la ims a dju ste r f or Z uric h, to g e t a

be tte r u nd e rs ta nd in g o f ho w h is m e dic a l bi lls would be handle d. Mr. Thomas and Mr . Thompson spoke three times during the y ear following the a c c ide nt. Whil e the pa

rt ie s a g re e that Mr . T ho mps on a dv ise d M r. Th oma s th a t hi s m edi cal bil ls wo uldbe pa id u p to $1 0, 00 0, the re is a disp ute a s to wha t Mr . T ho mps on sa id r e g ard ing wh ic h, if any , additional claims would be pa id and the nee d for Mr. T homas to hire an attorney

. There is no dispute that Z urich a ctually paid Mr. Thomas $10,000 within a f ew months of the a ccide nt.
On Octobe r 10, 2003, Mr. Thompson informe d Mr. Thomas that he would rec eive no further pay ments from Z urich be cause the one- y ear statute of limit ations period had run. Mr. Thomas and his wife promptly

filed this laws u i t o n October 14, 2003. The de fenda nts then filed a motion for summary judgme nt asserting that the complaint was filed outside the one-y ear statute of limitations provided by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28- 3-104. The T homases re sponded that the de fenda nts are equitably estopped fr om asserting their statute of limitations defense based on the actions of Mr. Th omp so n a ndZ uric h. Th e tr ial c ou rt de nie d th e mot ion fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, sp e c if

ic a lly fi nd ing that th e $1 0, 00 0 p a y me nt m a de by Z uric h indu c e d M r. Th oma s to be lie ve the ma tte r w ou ld be se ttl e d a mic ably

wi tho ut the ne c e ssi ty

of a la ws uit

. II.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgme nt is not entitled to a pre sumption of corr ectne ss on appea l. Cityof T ull ah om a v . B e dfo rd

Cou nty , 938 S.W .2d 408, 412 (Tenn. 1997) ;-3-

Mc Clu ng v
. De lta Sq ua re Ltd . P ar tne rsh ip , 937 S.W. 2d 89 1, 89 4 (T e nn . 199 6)

. Th us thi s c ou rt mus t make a fre sh determination conc erning whether the require ments of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have bee n met. Hu nte r v . B ro wn , 95 5 S.W. 2d 49 , 50 -5 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Mason v. Se aton , 942 S.W .2d 470, 472 (Tenn. 1997)

. A summary

judgme nt is warra nted only when there are no g enuine, material factual disputes with reg ard to the claim asserted and when the moving party is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law. Ba in v . W

e lls , 9 36 S.W. 2d61 8, 62 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; McCall v. W ilder , 9 1 3 S.W .2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 1995) . We must vi ew the e vidence in the light most favor able to the nonmoving party and must draw all rea sonable infe renc es in the nonmoving party ’s fa vor. Robinson v. Ome r , 952 S.W .2d 42 3, 42 6 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Mike v. Po Group, I nc
. , 9 3 7 S

. W

. 2 d 7 90, 792 (Tenn. 1996) . Summary judg me n t c a n n o t b e g r a n te d if a n y d o u b t o r u n c e r tain ty e xis ts w ith r e g ar d to th e fac ts or the conclusions to be dra wn from the f acts. Carvell v. Bottoms , 9 00 S.W. 2d23 , 2 6 ( Te nn . 1 99 5) ; By rd
v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 211 (Tenn. 1993)

. Acc ording ly , to sur vive a summary judgme nt motion, the nonmoving pa

rty need o n l y d emonstrate that rea sonable pe rsons might dra w diffe rent conclusions from the f

acts. McCall v. W

ilder , 913 S.W .2d at 157.
There is no dispute that t h e Thomases filed the ir complaint outside the one- y ear statute of limit ations. The Thomase s assert, howe ver, tha t the d ef en dants are equitably

estopped fr om asserting the statute of limitations defense be cause the def endants induced them to be lieve the matter would be settled a micably . The doc trine of e quitable estoppel may be applied to pr event a

defe ndant who has a c ti v e ly

in d u c e d a

p lain ti f f to d e lay f il in g s u it f r o m a s s e r ti n g th e s tatu te o f li mi tati o n s as a d efe nse. Fahrner v. S.W . Mfg., Inc. , 4 8 S. W. 3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 5 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 1 )

. T h e d o c trin e s h o u ld be invoked sparing ly , howeve r, to defe at an otherwise valid statute of limitations defense. Ha rd c as tle
v . H ar ris , ___ S.W .3d ___, ___, 2004 WL 2821276, at *11 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2004), perm app. de nied (Tenn. 2005)

. Determining whe ther to invoke e quitable estoppel re quires the c ourts to examine the fa c ts a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s o f the pa rt ic ular case to d e te rm ine wh e the r the de fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t is su ff ic ie ntl y un fair or mi sle a din g to o utw e ig h th e pu bli c po lic y fa vo ri ng statut e s o f l imi ta tio ns
. Ha rd c as tle v . H

ar ris , ___ S.W .3d at ___, 2004 WL 2821276, at *11. The pa rty invoking the doc trine of equitable e stoppel bear s the burden of proof. Carlton v. Da v is , No. M2002-01189-COA- R3-CV, 2003 WL 1923825, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), perm app. denied (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; Bokor v. H older , 722 S.W .2d 6 7 6 , 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). T he foc us of the inquiry

is on the defe ndant’s conduc t and the re asonable ness of the pla intiffs’ re lia n ce on that conduct. Fahrner v. S.W

. Mfg., Inc. , 48 S.W .3d at 146. To preva il, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defe ndant lulled it into putting off filing its suit by

conduct, sug g estions, or assura nces tha t the defe ndant knew or should have known would induce the pla intiff to delay filing suit. F

a h r n e r v
. S

. W. Mfg., Inc. , 48 S.W .3d at 145. Evidence of vague statements or ambig uous behavior by a def endant is not su ff ic ie nt. Ra the r, the plaintif f mus t id e nti fy

sp e c if ic pr omi se s, ind uc e me nts , r e pr e se ntatio ns , or assurances by the defe ndant that rea sonably induced the plaintiff to de lay filing suit. Ha rd c as tle
v . H ar ris , ___ S.W .3d at ___, 2004 WL 2821276, at *11. Howe ver, a ctual fr aud, bad f aith, or intent to m isl e a d o r d e c e ive on the pa rt of the de fe nd a nt i s n ot n e c e ssa ry to i nv ok e e qu ita

ble e sto pp e l. C hurch of Christ v. McDonald, 1 8 0 T e n n
. 8 6 , 9 5 , 1 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 1

- 2 2 ( 1 9 4 3 )

. A p r o m ise toT he d e fen d a n ts filed a m o t i o n t o bif urcat e i n t he t ri al co urt , request i ng t hat t he st at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns and 3

e q u itab le e sto p p e l i ssu e s b e tr ie d s e p a ra te ly, b e fo re th e iss u e s o f liab ili ty a n d d a m a g e s. T h e trial c o u rt d e c line d to ru le
o n t he m o t i o n whi l e t he i nt erl o cut o ry ap p eal was pend i ng. -4- pay or otherw ise satisfy

the plaintiff’s c laim without fili n g s u i t m aybe suff icient to justify application of the doctrine

. Brick Church Transmissions, Inc. v. Southern Pilot Ins. Co. , 140 S.W .3d 324, 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Viewing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the Thomases, a g enuine mate rial fa ctual dispute exi sts as to what Mr. Thompson told Mr. Thomas reg arding the payment of Mr. Thomas’ s additional claims and the ne ed fo r Mr. Thomas to hire a lawy er. Mor eover , a g enuine, mate rial dispute exi sts as to the infere nces to be draw n from the conver sations be tween Mr . Thompson and Mr . T ho ma s a ndfr om the $1 0, 00 0 p a y me nt ma de by Z uric h. Ac c or din g ly , summ ary jud g e me nt i n not appropriate.
Had the trial court denied the m otion for summary judgme nt based solely

on the exist ence of dispu te d f

a c ts , w e w o u ld h a v e a f

f irme d th a t d e c is io n in f

u ll

. H o w e v e r , th e tria l c o u r t made a specific finding that the $10,000 payment by Z urich “ did induce the plaintiff to be lieve that the matter would be settled amicably without the nece ssityof a la wsuit, and, for this re ason, the plaintiff delay ed filing his suit.” T h i s fi n d ing implies that the Thomase s have not only avoided summary judgme nt but ha ve alre ady preva iled on a key portion of their equitable estoppel claim as a ma tter of law. What the $10,000 pay ment induced Mr. T homas to believe a nd why he delay ed filing the lawsuit are q u e s ti o n s w h ic h mu s t b e a n s w e r e d b y th e trie r o f f a c t a f te r th e p ar ti e s h a v e h a d an opportunity

to present evidence. Thus the de fenda nts should be allowed to ra ise the statute of limit ations defe nse at trial, e ven thoug h they are not entitled to a summary judgme nt. The plaintiffs

3 wi ll the n b e able to a sse rt on c e a g ain th e do c trine of e qu ita ble e sto pp e l, andthe tr ie r o f f a c t w ill de te rm ine wh e the r the p lain tif fs ha ve de mon str a te d th a t Z uric h ma de sp e c if ic pr omi se s, ind uc e me nts , r e pr e s e n t at i o n s , o r a s s u r a nc e s th a t r e a so na

bly ind uc e d th e plaint if

fs to d e la y fi lin g su it.
III
. The a pplication for a n interlocutory appea l is hereby g rante d. The portion of the trial court’ s J anuary 7, 2005 order

finding that the $10,000 pay ment “did induce the plaintiff to believe that the matter would be settled amica bly without the nece ssityof a la wsuit, and, for this re ason, the plaintiff del a y e d f il in g h is s u it ” is v a c a te d

. T h e r e main d e r o f th e o r d e r d e n yin g th e mo ti o n for summary judgme nt is affirmed, and the case is remande d to the trial court f or further proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion. T h e co s t s of this appea l are taxed one-half to the pla intiffs and one- half to the defe ndants and their sur ety for whic h execution, if nece ssary , may issue.

PER C URI AM