Source: http://www.thehamiltonfirm.com/author/huhamilton/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:36:21+00:00

Document:
Tennessee’s appellate courts have, for years, tended to favor insurance companies over consumers. Finally, the Tennessee Supreme Court has come down firmly on the side of the insured consumers, in a case with broader significance than the narrow issue presented by the facts of the case, Lammert, et al. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-02546-SC-R23-CV, (4/15/19).
On a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the language in the policies was ambiguous and therefore must be construed in favor of the insured parties. The homeowners sued Auto-Owners after it tried to reduce payments to them after a loss by depreciating labor costs associated with replacing the damaged components of their homes. Under the specific facts of these cases, the Supreme Court held that labor may not be depreciated when the insurance company calculates the actual cash value of property using the replacement cost less depreciation method.
Both sides presented “plausible interpretations” of language in the policies, which did not explicitly state that Auto-Owners could depreciate labor expenses when determining the actual cash value of the damaged property. There is a split of authority on this issue in other states.
Hubert E. “Hu” Hamilton has again been named as a Super Lawyer in Georgia for his work as a Plaintiff’s Personal Injury lawyer, for the 8th year in a row.
Super Lawyers is a rating service by Thomson Reuters of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Their selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
Mr. Hamilton has the unique distinction of also being recognized as a Mid-South Super Lawyer for Tennessee.
Click here for a link to Mr. Hamilton’s profile on the Super Lawyers website.
Jackson Life argued that the district court must apply T.C.A. § 29-39-104 and reduce the punitive damages to twice the amount of the compensatory damages. The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the cap. The Tennessee Supreme Court declined to answer the certified questions, and the district court reduced the punitive damages to $700,000, rejecting plaintiff’s constitutional challenge.
Lindenberg is significant, not only for declaring Tennessee’s punitive damages caps to be unconstitutional, but also for illustrating how an insured, who is mistreated by an insurance company, can eventually obtain justice, after years of litigation and appeals.
Mr. Slaughter, an EMT for Hamilton County, Tennessee, was injured as the result of a car wreck on April 5, 2010. The injury took place while Mr. Slaughter was working for the County. Hamilton County opted out of the Tennessee workers’ compensation program. Instead, the County operated a self funded on-the-job injury program. As part of the on-the-job injury program, the County paid Mr. Slaughter $7,512.29 in benefits related to his injury. Mr. Slaughter also had a tort claim against the at-fault driver. The County filed a lien on the tort case, seeking to recover the amount of money paid to Mr. Slaughter per the on-the-job injury program.
Mr. Slaughter’s claim was settled for $24,600.00. For whatever reason, Mr. Slaughter’s case went to trial after settlement, and he was awarded $58,000.00 in damages by a jury. Thereafter, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of whether the County could recover from Mr. Slaughter’s settlement. The trial court denied the County’s claim, and the matter was appealed.
The reviewing court upheld the trial court’s decision, holding: (a) there was no statutory or contractual lien; and, (b) Mr. Slaughter was not made-whole by the settlement, and as a result, the County was not entitled to subrogation. (Slaughter v. Mills, (Tenn.Ct.App. 12/19/2019).
A few additional notes: As indicated above, the case was settled before trial, and then proceeded to a jury trial. Typically, settlement make a trial unnecessary. One can only guess that there was an additional defendant involved, who was found by the jury at trial to have not been at-fault. Second, the wreck at issue in this case took place in 2010, and yet the issue of a relatively small subrogation/lien claim was not resolved until 8 years later. For a case that was ultimately worth less than $25,000.00 to not be resolved (assuming no further appeals) for more than eight years is troubling.
Regardless, the Slaughter case is important for personal injury lawyers representing individuals who were injured on the job while working for an governmental entity that may not be subject to the workers’ compensation act, and thus, may not have a right of recovery.
The Hamilton Firm is pleased to announce that two of its four trial lawyers have again been recognized by Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers Magazine as among the state’s Top Rated Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Attorneys. Both Hubert Hamilton and Patrick Cruise have achieved Super Lawyer status for the current year, as published in Mid-South Super Lawyers, which recognizes top ranked attorneys in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
Hu Hamilton also has the unique distinction of again being recognized as a Top Rated Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Attorney in Georgia, as just announced by Georgia Super Lawyers. Mr. Hamilton is licensed in Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.
The selections by Thomson Reuters are made by the research team at Super Lawyers. Each year, the team undertakes a multiphase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent evaluation of candidates by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area and a good-standing and disciplinary check. Only five percent of attorneys are selected to the Super Lawyers list.
For “injuries to the person”, T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(1)(A).
Exception: Where criminal charges are brought against the defendant, the period is extended to two years if listed conditions are met, C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(2).
SOL tolled for minors, but statutes of repose will still apply, T.C.A. § 28-1-106.
In wrongful death cases, the cause of action accrues on the date of the negligent act or omission, which is NOT necessarily the date of death, Fowlkes v. Nashville & D. R. Co., 56 Tenn. 829 (1872).
One Year SOL is automatically extended 120 days by complying with the pre-suit notice requirements of T.C.A. § 29-26-121.
If the injury is not discovered within the one year period, the SOL can run from the date of discovery, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(2).
Products Liability: Six years from date of injury, and within ten years from date the product was first purchased (exceptions for asbestos and silicone breast implants), T.C.A. § 29-28-103.
Construction deficiency causing injury: Four years after substantial completion, T.C.A. § 28-3-202, unless injury occurs during fourth year, T.C.A. § 28-3-203 adds 1 more year.
Medical malpractice cases: Three years, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3).
Increases to $1,000,000 for “catastrophic loss or injury” (spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia or quadriplegia, amputation of two hands or feet, 3rd degree burns over 40% of the body), T.C.A. § 29-39-102(d).
Caps do not apply where there was specific intent to injure; falsification, destruction or concealment of records; under the influence of drugs or alcohol; or conviction of felony T.C.A. § 29-39-102(h).
Modified comparative fault, Plaintiff must be less than 50% at fault, McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).
Non-parties can be added within 90 days of answer alleging such other person to be at fault even if the statute of limitations has expired, T.C.A. § 20-1-119.
TRCP 26, Thomas v. Oldfield, 279 S.W.3d 259 (Tenn. 2008).
Does not stack, offset by liability limits.
Strict liability can be imposed on manufacturers and sellers under T.C.A. § 29-28-105.
Generally there must be an unsafe condition creating an unreasonable risk of harm, either created by the defendant, or that defendant knew or should have known about.
There is no real distinction between licensees and invitees under TN law. Social guests are owed a duty of reasonable care, Hudson v. Gaitan, 675 S.W.2d 699 (Tenn. 1984).
Attorney’s fees are limited to one-third, T.C.A. § 29-26-120.
Collateral sources cannot be recovered except for privately purchased insurance benefits, T.C.A. § 29-26-119.
Experts must come from TN or a contiguous state (with exceptions) and must have been practicing in that profession or specialty within one year preceding date of injury or wrongful act, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b).
Locality rule applies, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(1).
Complicated pre-suit notice, good faith requirements, T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121, 122.
Tort claims against the State (T.C.A. § 9-8-307), and against counties and cities (T.C.A. §29-20-403) are capped at $300,000 per claimant/$1,000,000 per occurrence.
Claims against the State must be filed with the Claims Commission.
Scheme is a confusing “hybrid between the survival and wrongful death statutes”, T.C.A. § 20-5-102, 106, Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487, 497 (Tenn. 2017).
Suit can be filed by personal representative, parent, surviving spouse (or children or next of kin if no surviving spouse), T.C.A. § 20-5-106, 107.
Clear and convincing evidence, bifurcated trial, limitations on vicarious liability, capped at twice compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater, subject to various exceptions including specific intent, falsifying records, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or conviction of felony, T.C.A. § 29-39-104.
In our area, thousands of Tennessee drivers cross back and forth between Tennessee and Georgia each day, often several times per day. Everyone must comply with the new law. While driving a motor vehicle in Georgia, do not hold your smartphone or cell phone, and do not support such a device with other parts of your body, such as resting it on your leg or in your lap. You can talk using a hands-free device, however.
Using a phone while “lawfully parked” is okay, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(g)(4).
Texting continues to be prohibited, including writing, reading or sending any “text based communication”, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(c)(2).
Watching videos or movies, or recording or broadcasting video from wireless telecommunications devices is also prohibited, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(c)(3) and (4).
In a signing ceremony earlier this year in at Georgia Southern University, Governor Deal mentioned one of many tragic events that motivated passage of the new law, House Bill 673: “Here at the home of Georgia Southern, I think is an appropriate place to sign this legislation,” he said, with pictures of five Georgia Southern nursing students beside him who died because of distracted driving.
Cert has been applied for, but unless the Supreme Court overrules this decision, we are likely to see more such language in apartment leases throughout Georgia. Lawyers should now be careful to review leases before deciding whether or not to accept representation in a Georgia premises liability case.

References: v. 
 § 29
 v. 
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 28
 § 28
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 § 20
 v. 
 § 29
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 9
 §29
 § 20
 v. 
 § 20
 § 29
 § 40
 § 40
 § 40