Dean G. Hafeman v. Protein Discovery, Inc.
Knox County – This is a breach of employment contract action filed by Dean G. Hafemen (“the Employee”) against Protein Discovery, Inc., a Tennessee corporation (“the Employer” or “the Company”) after the Employer terminated the Employee’s employment before the expiration of the term of his “Amended and Restated Employment Agreement” (“the Agreement”).
The complaint alleges that the Employee is entitled to certain severance benefits provided for in the Agreement for any termination that does not qualify as a “Termination For Cause” as defined in the Agreement.
After a bench trial, the court found that the termination was for cause and entered judgment in favor of the Employer. The Employee appeals. We reverse.
Thomas E. Moorhead, et al. v. Joy Vail Allman, et al.
Bedford County – The sellers of a mobile home park appeal the trial court’s decision to rescind two real estate sales contracts and refund the purchasers their down payment.
The purchasers asserted claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty, all of which arose from alleged misrepresentations by the sellers regarding the condition and income potential of the property at issue.
Following a lengthy and convoluted procedural history, including a jury trial, the granting of a new trial, and several waves of amended pleadings, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.
The sellers asserted various defenses including, inter alia, that the purchasers’ claims were time barred. Finding that the sellers fraudulently induced the purchasers into buying the property, and that the statute of limitations had been tolled due to the sellers’ concealment of material facts, the trial court denied the sellers’ motion, granted summary judgment to the purchasers.
For relief, the trial court rescinded the sales contracts and awarded the purchasers a refund of their down payments. We affirm.
Daniel Cavanaugh v. Avalon Golf Properties, LLC.
Loudon County – Plaintiffs purchased a residential lot from defendant developer, but the purchase contract required plaintiffs to use defendant construction company to build their home.
Before the home was completed, defendant construction company defaulted on paying materialmen and suppliers and abandoned the project. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that developer knew, or should have know, that the construction company was incapable of performing the required construction services, and that the developer owed plaintiff a fiduciary duty to provide a contractor who could perform the work in a good, workmanlike manner.
They further alleged a breach of contract, in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
A default judgment was entered against the construction company, and the developer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the trial court ultimately granted against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the trial court.
Donald J. Roberts IRA, et al. v. Phillip H. McNeill, Sr., et al.
Davidson County – After the death of her husband, the plaintiff filed suit against their agents/financial planners based upon several theories of recovery in regard to the termination of a life insurance policy from one company and the acquisition of a replacement policy from a second company.
After initially contesting the award of benefits, the second company, which was also named as a defendant in the suit, settled with the plaintiff.
At the conclusion of the bench trial as to the liability of the agents, the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages as to each policy based upon various theories of recovery: the agents’ failure to procure a life insurance policy as directed, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, but held that the damages in contract relating to the failure to procure should be offset by the amount of the plaintiff’s pre-trial settlement with the second insurance company.
Because of the nature of the issues presented, this Court granted permission to appeal. As to the policy for which benefits were denied by the second company, we hold that (1) a cause of action may arise for the failure of the agents to procure a policy not subject to contest; (2) the claim for failure to procure may be actionable, notwithstanding the policy holders’ admission that they did not read the insurance application; and (3) because the settlement by the second life insurance company was not specifically resolved based upon contract, the agents are not entitled to a credit against damages caused by their failure to procure.
As to the policy terminated by the plaintiff, we hold that the evidence preponderates against any award of damages based upon negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
Finally, we hold that the ad damnum clause in the complaint provided the agents with sufficient notice to support a damage award in the amount of $1,000,000 plus pre-judgment interest. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for determination of post-judgment interest.