O'Neil, Parker & Williamson, PLLC

03/11/2020

O'Neil Parker & Williamson, PLLC - recognized in "Best Law Firms In Tennessee" , U.S. News & World Report, November 2019

03/04/2020

03/28/2018

An insurance company, asserting a subrogation action on behalf of its insured (who were homeowners), sued a contractor in connection with a construction project that the contractor performed on the Homeowners’ house located in Robertson County, Tennessee. The contractor filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the suit was barred by the statute of repose contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202. After a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the Circuit Court for Robertson County entered its order granting summary judgment to the contractor after finding and holding, inter alia, that the insurance company’s claim was for subrogation, the claim was subject to the four year statute of repose contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202, and as the claim had been filed more than four years after substantial completion of the work, the insurer’s claim was barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that the claim was one for subrogation asserting a right pursuant to an alleged contract between the Homeowners and the contractor, that the insurer failed to show the existence of any contract between the Homeowners and the contractor, and that even if a contract between the Homeowners and contractor did exist, then coverage for such a contract would be excluded under the insurance policy between the insurer and the Homeowners. The case was Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Southern Damage Appraisals, LLC.

03/10/2018

The Tennessee Supreme Court has decided that a surviving spouse still maintains the priority to file a wrongful death lawsuit when the decedent's child had also filed a wrongful death lawsuit in which the child alleged that the surviving spouse negligently caused the decedent's death. The Court decided so because the wrongful death statutes do not include an exception to the spousal priority rule and the surviving spouse (in that case) did not waive his right to file the wrongful death lawsuit.

06/21/2017

Congrats to Bill!

http://tn.gov/news/51080

NASHVILLE – Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has named William A. Young of Knoxville to the Tennessee Claims Commission, replacing William O. Shults of Newport whose terms expires June 30.

11/10/2014

Plaintiffs were involved in a car wreck in Tennessee while driving a vehicle they borrowed from North Carolina residents. The car owners had selected an insurance policy with a Missouri choice of law provision because their daughter principally used the car in Missouri where she attended college. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the law of Missouri or North Carolina controls. Unlike North Carolina, Missouri law did not provide for underinsured motorist coverage. Plaintiffs contended that the laws of North Carolina governed the insurance policy. The trial court disagreed, finding that the Missouri choice of law provision was valid and enforceable because the choice of law provision was not contrary to a fundamental policy of North Carolina.

Citing Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co, 493 S.W.3d 465, 476 (Tenn. 1973), the Court of Appeals noted that Tennessee’s conflict of law doctrine provides that a contract is presumed to be governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which it was executed absent a contrary intent. If the parties manifest an intent to instead apply the laws of another jurisdiction, then that will be honored provided that the provision was executed in good faith and the jurisdiction whose law is chosen bears a material connection into the transaction.

In this case, although the car was registered in North Carolina, it was seldom used there. The principle location and use of the insured vehicle was in Missouri, therefore, the principle risk associated with the vehicle was in Missouri. Because North Carolina’s interest in the regulation of an insurance policy of an automobile primarily operated in Missouri does not constitute a fundamental policy, the choice of law provision was valid and enforceable.

Williams v. Smith, No. M2013-02606-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2014)

09/10/2014

The plaintiff, a detective with the Polk County Sheriff’s Department, was seriously injured when the Polk County vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by one of the two named defendants. Plaintiff and his wife sued the two named defendants and served process and a copy of the complaint upon two unnamed parties, Tennessee Risk Management Trust (“TRMT”) and Markel Corporation. The suit against named defendants was settled for the full amount of liability limits.

The plaintiffs then sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits from the unnamed parties, arguing that TRMT is subject to the uninsured motorist coverage requirements of the Code, and, hence, required to make such coverage available to the plaintiffs. The undisputed facts revealed that the Polk County Government insured the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger pursuant to the terms of the Coverage Document. The Certificate of Liability and/or Declarations page regarding the “Coverage Document” provided for 1 million in liability coverage and 1 million in uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident in question. The named member of the Certificate of liability insurance is Polk County Government.

The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that TRMT is not subject to those requirements. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the insurance policy before the Court did not extend uninsured coverage to employees of Polk County. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals, relying on the recently decided Supreme Court decision Harris v. Haynes, found that a governmental fund established in accordance with T.C.A. § 29-40-201-408 is exempt from the requirements of Tennessee’s insurance statutes and therefore need not comply with the requirements of the uninsured motorist state, T.C.A. § 56-7-1201. Because the Coverage Document TRMT issued to Polk County specifically excluded employees from uninsured motorist coverage and TRMT is not otherwise required to offer such coverage, Plaintiff may not recover from TRMT. Waters v. Pendergrass, E2013-00431-COA-R3CV, 2014 WL 4412337 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2014)

08/20/2014

Tennessee is one of several states that has adopted legislation capping damages on tort suits. Under the Civil Justice Act of 2011, noneconomic damages are capped at $750,000 and punitive damages at either $500,000 or twice the amount of compensatory damages, whichever is greater. There are some limited exceptions to these caps.

Across the nation, there are numerous pending cases where plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of tort reform statutory caps. Legal challenges involve aspects of constitutional law, namely the right to trial by jury, equal protection, due process, and the separation of powers. Tennessee is no exception. The state’s cap statute has been subject to litigation, however, a Tennessee appellate court has yet to render an opinion reaching the merits of the claim. All constitutional challenges to this point have been dismissed for ripeness.

As it stands, 36 states currently have cap statutes, 9 states have no statutory caps, and 5 states have constitutional amendments barring statutory caps. Of the states with cap statutes, 16 hold that statutory caps are constitutional, 8 hold that the caps are unconstitutional, 9 are undecided or unchallenged, and 3 states have mixed results.

08/06/2014

The Court of Appeals recently opined on the issue of whether an unauthorized alien has standing to pursue a retaliatory discharge claim against his or her employer. Torres, an undocumented worker, alleged that his employer terminated his employment as a direct result of the employee asserting a workers’ compensation claim. The employer moved for summary judgment arguing that Torres could not bring a claim for retaliatory discharge because he was incapable of employment in Tennessee. The trial court granted summary judgment based solely on the illegal status of Torres.

On appeal, the court noted that a retaliatory discharge action does not seek to protect a person’s legal claim to a job, but rather seeks to protect an “employee’s” right to file a workers compensation claim if deterred by an employer’s action. Citing both judicial and legislative authority, the Court of Appeals found that unauthorized aliens working for employers are considered “employees” and thus have standing to bring a workers compensation claim.

Having found that Torres had the right to file a workers’ compensation claim, the court then turned to the issue of whether Torres retained the ability to protect the right to by filing a retaliatory discharge claim. Although this was an issue of first impression, courts in Tennessee and across the country routinely permit unauthorized aliens to sue when their rights are injured in other ways, including bringing causes of action in tort or contract. Based on this, the court found illegal status was insufficient to bar an unauthorized alien from bringing a claim for retaliatory discharge against an employer to protect his or her right to file a claim for workers’ compensation.