Volume 572 — South Western Reporter, Third Series

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has submitted a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23 regarding the interpretation of two insurance policies: "Under Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as 'the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,' or (2) states that 'actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?"' Based on Tennessee law regarding the interpretation of insurance contracts, we conclude that the language in the policies is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured parties. Therefore, we answer the district court's question in the negative: The insurer may not withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation.

This is a case of healthcare liability and wrongful death. After the decedent's death at a Tullahoma hospital, his surviving spouse filed suit seeking damages for his injuries and death. The case was eventually tried before a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the Plaintiff. Although the jury determined that the total damages were $300,000, the trial court suggested an additur of over $1,000,000. An amended final judgment was subsequently entered after the trial court determined that the Defendant had accepted the additur under protest. Because we are of the opinion that the trial court's additur destroyed the jury's verdict, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

This appeal involves various issues related to a mortgage loan transaction and loan modification efforts. The plaintiffs' complaint, which was filed just a few days before a scheduled foreclosure, asserted multiple claims for relief, including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Truth-in- Lending Act. The trial court ultimately dismissed all claims at summary judgment in the defendants' favor. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion

This is a personal injury case involving a motor vehicle accident. The alleged tortfeasor died subsequent to the injury-causing accident. The plaintiffs were unaware of the decedent's death and commenced this suit naming him as a defendant. Some months later, after learning of the decedent's death, the plaintiffs sought the appointment of an administrator ad litem in the Probate Court and amended their complaint naming the administrator ad litem as a party as required by the survival statute. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs' complaint was not properly filed until after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs timely appealed. Having concluded that the plaintiffs did not properly commence their lawsuit within the time afforded by the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm.

A medical product sales representative brought suit against her former employer, a hospital, claiming retaliation in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. After a bench trial, the trial court judge entered a verdict in favor of the hospital, having concluded that the employee failed to carry her burden of proof. In spite of dismissing the employee's case, the trial court awarded the employee a portion of her attorney's fees as "sanctions" against the hospital for making an allegedly late-filed motion to strike the employee's demand for a jury trial, which the trial court granted. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the employee's retaliation claim, and we reverse the trial court's order granting the employee attorney's fees.

This is a case concerning a commercial-property insurance policy dispute. The insured party filed suit upon the insurance company denying theft coverage on a claim. The insurance company claimed that the vacancy clause excluded the theft coverage of the property at issue. The trial court found that the vacancy clause did not apply and that the policy required the insurance company to cover the theft. The insurance company appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.