In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that the owner of the trailer had exclusive control over it and had negligently inspected and maintained it and hadn’t made sure the trailer complied with all federal motor vehicle safety standards. The plaintiffs claimed the trailer had caused the accident and that the wife had suffered severe and permanent bodily injuries as a result of the accident. The plaintiffs also claimed the husband had incurred lost wages due to total loss of the tractor. They asked for damages of $850,000 and later added a request for punitive damages, claiming that the defendant falsified its year inspection reports.

The defendant answered, denying claims of negligence and wrongdoing. The defendant claimed that the causes of the accident were the plaintiff’s speeding and failure to control the tractor and use reasonable care. It also claimed the plaintiff hadn’t performed the requisite pre-trip inspection in accord with federal motor carrier safety regulations and that his own negligence barred recovery.

In this recent insurance appeal, Jefferson County Schools sued Travelers Indemnity Company to provide full coverage of all of the damages related to a recent building collapse. One of the school district’s high school buildings collapsed during a rainstorm. After reviewing the damage, the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office directed the School District to repair the collapsed building and to ensure that all repairs were taken to prevent a future collapse.

Travelers did not contest its obligation to pay for the repairs on the collapsed portion of the building, nor did it disagree with its obligation to pay for some of the repairs made to the existing uncollapsed building in order to prevent future collapses. Indeed, the company paid almost $900,000 in repairs to the school district. However, Travelers took issue with the final recommendation from the engineer whom the school district hired, which advised the school district to provide additional reinforcement to the walls at the school. Travelers argued that this recommendation was discretionary and that they did not need to pay for it.  The school district argued that under the terms of the policy, Travelers was required to pay for all of the work necessary to comply with the ordinances of the state, and this was an ordinance, since it came directly from the fire marshal.

In this Tennessee property damage case, J.E. sued Piedmont Natural Gas Company for damages that he alleged were intentionally caused to his sewer line. According to J.E., in 1984, Nashville Gas Company installed a natural gas pipeline near a sewer line that serviced J.E.’s property. In 2013, sewage overflowed into J.E.’s basement. During the process of dealing with the sewer issues, J.E. learned that his sewage line had been damaged by digging equipment. According to J.E., no digging permits had been issued for his property other than to Nashville Gas Company in 1984.

J.E. sued Piedmont Natural Gas Company, which had purchased Nashville Gas Company by that time. J.E. alleged that Piedmont knowingly and intentionally damaged his sewer line while installing their gas line and that Piedmont had intentionally concealed the damage that had occurred. J.E. sought $25,000 in damages to repair his sewer line. At an initial jury trial, the jury awarded J.E. approximately $5,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $10,000 in punitive damages. Piedmont appealed.

In this case, the plaintiff, S.R., was injured after she slipped and fell while seeking treatment at a local emergency room. When she entered the emergency room, she slipped on a clear liquid on the floor, resulting in a hard fall. S.R. experienced injuries to her back, hip, and ankle as a result of the fall. Almost a year afterward, S.R. filed a complaint in court, alleging that the hospital where she fell, St. Francis Hospital, knew the liquid was on the floor but failed to clean it up, which led to her fall. She alleged negligence and failure to warn. St. Francis Hospital denied the allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment. It argued that S.R. could not actually show that St. Francis Hospital or its employees were aware of the liquid, how long it had been on the floor, or how the spill was created. In response, S.R. stated that two St. Francis employees had told her that they knew there was Sprite on the floor and that they meant to clean it up but had not yet done so.

In response to these allegations, the court granted S.R. additional time to take discovery, including depositions of the witnesses, in order to prove that these conversations occurred. S.R. failed to do so, and, after the additional time had expired, the court granted summary judgment. S.R. appealed.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that while pro se plaintiffs are entitled to special consideration, they are bound by the requirements of the law. Here, the laws of negligence required that S.R. show that St. Francis Hospital knew there was liquid on the floor and failed to warn about it or deal with it, or that they should have reasonably known about the liquid. S.R. failed to show any of these things when she did not depose the witnesses whom she alleged had information about the spill. In the absence of such witness testimony, the appellate court agreed with the lower court that it could not allow S.R.’s claims to proceed on the basis of mere speculation. It further stated that S.R. clearly should have made an effort to depose these individuals or other witnesses who could support her claim, but she had not done so. In the absence of any support for the notion that St. Francis Hospital knew or should have known the liquid was on the floor, the court upheld the grant of summary judgment.

Proving the elements of a premises liability claim can be difficult, particularly without the guidance of an attorney. Knowing which witnesses you need to depose and how to effectively prove your case often requires legal knowledge. Experienced premises liability attorney Eric Beasley has years of experience helping clients evaluate their claims and develop a cost-effective approach to trial. If you have recently been in an accident and are uncertain about your rights, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Tennessee Court Emphasizes That Dangerous Conditions Must Cause Actual Harm, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, February 3, 2016

Tennessee Court Finds Lack of Knowledge of Dangerous Condition Sufficient For Summary Judgment, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, July 7, 2016

What Constitutes a Known Dangerous Condition in Tennessee?, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, June 7, 2016

In Hogan v. Jacobson & Lockhart, Ms. Hogan applied for disability benefits through her employer’s long-term disability insurer.  Her claim was denied by the insurer because she was found not to qualify for benefits.  Shortly thereafter, Ms. Hogan filed an ERISA lawsuit against the insurer for an improper denial of short-term and long-term benefits. The claim was rejected by the district court, which held that she did not follow the proper procedures for appealing the denial of her benefits.

While Ms. Hogan’s ERISA case was up on appeal, Ms. Hogan filed a second lawsuit in state court, alleging that Jo Ellen Jacobson and Kem Alan Lockhart were liable for negligence per se because of their involvement in the evaluation of Ms. Hogan’s claims for disability.  Although not licensed to practice in Kentucky, where Ms. Hogan filed her claim, the two had evaluated Ms. Hogan’s case and provided medical opinions about whether Ms. Hogan was in fact disabled. Ms. Hogan argued in her second lawsuit that this was a violation of Kentucky’s medical licensing statutes. The defendants immediately moved to transfer the case to federal court, based on ERISA preemption, where it was later dismissed. On appeal, Ms. Hogan argued that her claim for negligence per se was independent of her ERISA claim and was not preempted by ERISA. Accordingly, it should never have been transferred to federal court.

Under the preemption standards imposed by ERISA, a state law claim is preempted by a federal statute if (1) the plaintiff complains about a denial of benefits to which she is entitled under an ERISA employee benefit plan, and (2) the plaintiff does not allege a violation of an independent legal duty beyond ERISA.  Here, the Sixth Circuit held that, at the heart of Ms. Hogan’s negligence claim, she was complaining about a denial of her disability benefits. Ultimately, the harm that Ms. Hogan experienced as a result of the medical evaluations by Ms. Jacobson and Ms. Lockhart was a denial of these benefits, and the only relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants arose out of the evaluation of possible ERISA benefits. For this reason, the Sixth Circuit held that Ms. Hogan’s artful pleading was, in reality, simply a reassertion of her ERISA claim that had already been denied.

Likewise, the Sixth Circuit also found that Ms. Hogan could not identify an independent legal duty that the defendants violated during their evaluations.  The duty of Ms. Jacobson and Ms. Lockhart to Ms. Hogan arose solely from her application for disability benefits, and again her damages claim flowed only from the denial of benefits.  Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the determination that Ms. Hogan’s claims were preempted by ERISA and properly removed to federal court.

If you are contemplating a tort or personal injury action based on an injury that is closely linked to a denial of disability or retirement benefits, it is important to speak with an attorney for guidance on how to craft a claim distinct from an ERISA violation. While many plaintiffs successfully bring such claims each year, it is easy to fall within the ERISA preemption trap without proper legal advice and assistance. Personal injury attorney Eric Beasley can assist you in evaluating and carefully drafting your claim. For more information on seeking redress and compensation for your injuries, contact the Law Office of Eric Beasley today at 615-859-2223.

Related Blog Posts:

Immunity from Personal Injury for Tennessee Ski Resorts, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, April 27, 2016.

The Complexities of Bringing Personal Injury Claims Against Large Corporations in Tennessee, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, March 10, 2016

Managing Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings for Personal Injury Claims, Tennessee Personal Injury Blog, February 24, 2016

Large truck accidents are different than other types of motor vehicle accidents. They often result in significantly higher levels of property damage, frequently involve multiple severe injuries, and are more likely to result in death than accidents involving smaller passenger vehicles. In addition, when you become the victim of an accident involving a large truck, the odds are against you before you even get out of your vehicle. Trucking companies often have decades of experience in dealing with accident claims similar to yours, and chances are their risk management department will already be working on ways to either deny your claim or minimize the payout you could receive. They frequently even have attorneys on standby- just waiting to fight against you. The bottom line is: if you or a loved one has been involved in a large truck accident in the “volunteer state”, you are almost certainly going to need a Tennessee truck accident lawyer.

Finding the Right Tennessee Truck Accident Lawyer

Types of Personal Injury Claims

The personal injury lawyer Tennessee will act as your personal advocate by protecting your legal rights. Allowing you time to focus on the healing process or grieve for your loss. Personal injury claims may be filed for a variety of reasons.

• Improperly signed wet floors, or waxy residue left behind
• Improperly lit walkways and paths

Hiring a trained Nashville car accident attorney is an important step to your recovery. The reason for this is simple: You and your family wish to focus on healing and not on endless bills or playing the blame game. Consider some of the following facts:

1. The insurance company of any other involved party does not wish to give you money, attempting to find a way to exempt their client of any liability. If that doesn’t work, they shall try to settle for the least amount possible, often making the process so tedious that you’ll agree to less out of frustration. It is better to have a mediator investigate the accident and handle negotiations the company on your behalf so that you may deal with your recovery without any added stress.

Despite these new limitations, however, economic damages can be collected for medical expenses, loss of work, inability to continue your career and more. Furthermore, most tort claims never reached as high as 3/4 million dollars per person to begin with, and some claims fall under federal law. Thus, with the help of a good Nashville personal injury lawyer, victims can still expect to secure extensive damages. Experienced personal injury attorneys, such as those at the Law Offices of Eric Beasley, know how to fight hard and win the maximum reimbursement allowed by the law.

Some of the most common causes of personal injury that lead to a lawsuit include auto accidents, slip and fall injuries at work, medical malpractice, defective and dangerous devices, nursing home abusive neglect  and dog bites. There are, of course, many other types of cases, but they all have these fundamental facts in common: