Source: http://burrowlee.com/category/practice-areas/civil-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:05:48+00:00

Document:
Piercing the Corporate Veil in Tennessee – When Can a Judgment Against a Corporation be the Personal Responsibility of the Shareholders?
April 30, 2017 /0 Comments/in Articles Employment Law: Defendant/Employer, Articles Employment Law: Plaintiff/Employee, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Insurance Defense Litigation, News, Products Liability /by Jason A. Lee, Esq.
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.
Does Employer’s Admission of Vicarious Liability for Actions of Employee Insulate the Employer from Other Causes of Action?
January 3, 2017 /0 Comments/in Articles Employment Law: Defendant/Employer, Articles Employment Law: Plaintiff/Employee, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Employment Law, Insurance Defense Litigation, News /by Jason A. Lee, Esq.
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.
September 8, 2016 /0 Comments/in Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Insurance Defense Litigation, News /by Jason A. Lee, Esq.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to represent itself as a licensed contractor or to act in the capacity of a “contractor” as defined in §§ 62-6-102, or 62-37-103, and related rules and regulations of this state, or any similar statutes, rules and regulations of another state, while not licensed, unless such person, firm or corporation has been duly licensed under § 62-6-103 or § 62-37-104.
A licensed contractor is specifically defined in this statute.
May 1, 2016 /0 Comments/in Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Insurance Defense Litigation, News /by Jason A. Lee, Esq.
A recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, Hilda Willis v. McDonalds Restaurants of Tennessee, Inc., No. E2015-00615-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 9426271 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015), involved a slip and fall at a McDonald’s in Tennessee and it provided an interesting issue. In this case the plaintiff was maneuvering around the area where drinks were served at a McDonald’s. As she left that area she saw a french fry on the bottom corner of the surface next to the service counter. She stepped over the french fry and claimed that there was a sharp object that she felt through her shoe. She believes this is what caused her to fall. When she fell she dropped her drinks therefore there was ice everywhere. Because of this, there was no ability to actually identify the piece of ice or other object that allegedly caused her to fall.
January 23, 2016 /0 Comments/in Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Insurance Defense Litigation, News, Products Liability /by Jason A. Lee, Esq.
Rule 37 sanctions may be imposed upon a party or an agent of a party who discards, destroys, mutilates, alters, or conceals evidence.
The question before the Tennessee Supreme Court in Lea Ann Tatham was whether Tennessee Courts should continue to require an intentional misconduct prerequisite for a trial court to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The Tennessee Supreme Court decided this issue and expressed the desire to provide a uniform standard on this issue.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 § 62
 § 62
 v.