 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County11/9/2005
regarding the waiver of premium provision when they were approved for a disability retirement.
Following the close of the surviving spouses' case-in-chief, the Metropolitan Government moved for a directed verdict on six grounds. Two of these grounds were (1) that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the "elements" of the group life insurance contract and (2) that the plaintiffs had failed to present medical evidence demonstrating that their spouses would have qualified for the waiver of premium benefit had they applied for it in a timely manner. The trial court granted the Metropolitan Government a directed verdict on both of these grounds. While the court did not focus on the absence of medical evidence, it held that the surviving spouses had failed to prove what the qualifications for the waiver of premium benefit were and whether their spouses met these requirements because they failed to introduce a copy of the group life insurance contract. The court stated that it believed that the jury would be left to speculate regarding the amount of the surviving spouses' damages unless they had a copy of the group insurance contract containing the waiver of premium provision.
2.
The preparation and trial of this case by both lawyers leaves much to be desired. The chief shortcomings are the Metropolitan Government's failure to file an answer to the surviving spouses' complaint and the failure of the lawyer representing the surviving spouses to bring this significant oversight to anyone's attention before the close of the plaintiffs' case-in-chief. The pleadings required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7 and 8 are not vestigial appendages to litigation. Their purpose is to provide notice of the parties' claims and defenses. Robert Banks, Jr. & June F. Entman, Tennessee Civil Procedure § 5-4(a), at 5-41 (2004) ("Tennessee Civil Procedure"). The purpose of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.04 is to ensure that the defendant's answer gives the plaintiff notice of those allegations in the complaint that are uncontested and that will not be an issue at trial. Tennessee Civil Procedure, § 5-4(f), at 5-56. There is no question that the disputed factual and legal issues in this case were not brought into sharp focus because of the Metropolitan Government's failure to file an answer.
The shortcomings in the surviving spouses' case-in-chief cannot, in fairness, be attributed solely to the surviving spouses themselves. They are the result, in no small measure, of the Metropolitan Government's failure to file an answer and by the Metropolitan Government's pretrial assertions regarding the existence and terms of the group life insurance contract, particularly the waiver of premium provision. Had the Metropolitan Government denied the existence of the group life insurance contract containing the waiver of premium provision for disabled employees, which it did not, the surviving spouses would, most likely, have presented more detailed evidence regarding the existence and terms of the contract. Had the Metropolitan Government denied that the surviving spouses' understanding and interpretation of the waiver of premium provision, which it did not, the surviving spouses would, most likely, have presented more detailed evidence regarding the terms of the waiver of premium provision. Had the Metropolitan Government denied that their spouses' age or the extent of their spouses' disability would not have been sufficient to qualify for the waiver of premium benefit, which it did not, the plaintiffs would, most likely, have presented more detailed evidence supporting claim that their spouses qualified for the benefit.
However, not only did the Metropolitan Government fail to take issue with the surviving spouses'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|