 |
 |
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
by "concealing and failing to inform" her of the "waiver of premium option" that would have provided her with a larger death benefit and by "intentionally lying" to her and her husband.
On May 3, 2002, all three complaints were consolidated in the Circuit Court for Davidson County for "pre-trial and discovery purposes only." At this point, the Metropolitan Government had filed an answer to Ms. Jackson's amended complaint but had not yet filed answers to either Mr. Reese's complaint or the complaint filed on behalf of Mmes. Goot, Taylor, and Duke. On October 15, 2002, the Metropolitan Government filed identical motions for summary judgment in all three cases. While none of these motions complied with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7.02(1), we glean from the record that the motions asserted that the surviving spouses' intentional tort claims based on the alleged misrepresentations by employees of the Metropolitan Government were barred by Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 29-20-205(6) (2000). The surviving spouses responded by insisting that their claims sounded in contract rather than in tort. On January 15, 2003, following a hearing on December 13, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting partial summary judgments in all three cases because "the . . . [plaintiffs'] tort claims arise out of alleged misrepresentations by employees of the Defendant and are therefore barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act." However, the court permitted the cases to continue because "the facts put forth by the . . .[surviving spouses] arguably state a claim for breach of contract and will require a trial."
On June 17, 2003, the trial court empaneled a jury to try the remaining breach of contract claims of Mmes. Goot, Taylor, and Duke. The Metropolitan Government moved for a directed verdict on numerous grounds at the close of the plaintiffs' case-in-chief. It was at this point that the parties and the court discovered that the Metropolitan Government had never filed an answer. The trial court decided to direct a verdict for the Metropolitan Government after concluding that Mmes. Goot, Taylor, and Duke had "failed to prove an essential element of their claim." The court concluded that the plaintiffs had "failed to prove the terms of the insurance contract under which they claim they would have benefited had they been informed of its terms" and that without this proof the jury would be unable to determine whether their spouses "would have qualified for the waiver of premium benefit" or "to determine Plaintiffs' damages." The trial court entered an order granting the directed verdict on July 15, 2003.
On August 29, 2003, the Metropolitan Government filed new motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining claims of Mr. Reese and Ms. Jackson. Following a hearing on October 10, 2003, the trial court entered separate orders on October 23, 2003 granting the motions and dismissing all remaining claims. The court concluded that Ms. Jackson's breach of contract claim was "barred by the applicable statute of limitations." With regard to Mr. Reese's remaining claim, the court determined that his deceased wife had been properly notified of the waiver of premium benefit and that "the July 20, 2000 letter from Aetna US Healthcare did not merge with Mrs. Reese's contract of employment so as to require the Defendant to notify her of its contents."
The five surviving spouses have appealed. All five take issue with the summary judgment dismissing their intentional tort claims. Mmes. Goot, Taylor, and Duke challenge the directed verdict dismissing their contract claims. Finally, Mr. Reese and Ms. Jackson take issue with the summary judgments dismissing their contract claims.
III. The Surviving S
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.
|
|