Day on Torts

October 1, 2026

Promissory fraud summary judgment affirmed.

Where the plaintiff’s only proof supporting his promissory fraud claim related to the defendant’s conduct months after the alleged misrepresentation was made, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.

In Johnson v. LeFeve, No. M2024-01484-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2026), the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant based on an oral promise that the defendant would pay the plaintiff ten percent of the profits from two companies owned by the defendant for work done by the plaintiff. This promise was allegedly made in June 2021. Following this promise, the plaintiff was involved in the sale of certain property owned by the businesses, which closed in November 2021. After closing, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff the promised ten percent of profits, and the plaintiff filed this case asserting promissory fraud and various contract claims.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. Regarding the fraud claim, the trial court ruled that the alleged promise lacked definiteness and that “there was no proof that Defendants intended not to pay Plaintiff.” On appeal, the ruling was affirmed based only on the lack of proof of intent.

September 30, 2026

Tennessee savings statute begins to run when order of voluntary dismissal is entered.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee savings statute runs from the date the order of voluntary dismissal is entered, even if the court retains jurisdiction over the case for remaining issues.

In Salas v. Rosdeutscher, No. M2025-00244-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 16, 2026), the plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against the defendant. The defendant responded by filing a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel. The plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, and the trial court entered an order of voluntary dismissal in March 2020. The trial court retained jurisdiction of the case to determine the sanctions issued, and entered an order awarding sanctions in April 2021.

In January 2021, the plaintiff served the defendant a second pre-suit notice under the HCLA, and she filed this second suit in May 2021. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the claim was time-barred because the savings statute had expired. The trial court ultimately ruled for the plaintiff, holding that the savings statute did not begin to run until the sanctions order was entered, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

September 22, 2026

No negligent misrepresentation without proof of causation.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a plaintiff could not show that she justifiably relied on alleged negligent misrepresentations from a financial advisor, the trial court’s award of damages to the plaintiff was reversed.

In Bartholomew v. Southard, No. W2024-01494-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2026) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff represented a client in a wrongful death action, helping to obtain a large settlement for the client with a present value of $2,250,000. The plaintiff’s attorney’s fees totaled $750,000, but rather than paying the full fee immediately, the client asked to pay the fee over time as the settlement was paid. The plaintiff attorney and the client entered into an assignment agreement, whereby the plaintiff was to receive over $2.1 million over a 30-year period. The plaintiff asked the defendant, a financial advisor, to calculate the annual amounts to be paid by the client, and the plaintiff paid the defendant $250 for this work.

In 2011, the client stopped making annual payments under the assignment agreement. By this time, the client had paid $600,752.72 to the plaintiff attorney. The plaintiff attorney filed a complaint against the client, and shortly thereafter the client filed an ethics complaint against the attorney. The client alleged that the plaintiff did not counsel him to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to the assignment agreement, and that the assignment agreement was not in his best interest. Before the plaintiff and client mediated their fee dispute, the plaintiff’s counsel realized that some of the calculations suggested by the defendant had not been reduced to their present value, which would have resulted in an overpayment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff ultimately settled with the former client for an additional payment of $100,000.

September 14, 2026

Ruling that TPPA did not apply reversed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the plaintiffs’ tort claims related to a state court case filed by the defendants in California, the TPPA applied. The fact that an amended complaint added facts about statements that were made before the California filing did not change that analysis.

In Patel v. Patel, No. M2024-01371-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2026), Plaintiff Jay Patel was a businessman and entrepreneur. In 2018 he solicited investments for a business, but none of the investors ever received any distributions from that business. Defendant Kar served as CEO of that business, until he was later terminated. Defendant Kar filed a wrongful termination suit in California (with another defendant acting as his attorney), alleging among other things that Plaintiff Jay Patel “was engaged in an ongoing Ponzi scheme.” Defendant Kar also emailed investors and stakeholders in Jay Patel’s business asserting that Jay Patel had engaged in wire fraud and securities law violations. The defendants repeated these allegations against Plaintiff Jay Patel to members of business communities in which Jay Patel was involved.

In 2023, the defendants sent a settlement demand letter to the plaintiffs. When the demand was rejected, the defendants filed an amended complaint in California state court. The plaintiffs thereafter filed this tort action in Tennessee, asserting claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process.

September 11, 2026

Dog bite claim filed under GTLA dismissed on summary judgment.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

An animal shelter that had not witnessed any aggressive behavior from a dog did not have a duty to warn the person who adopted the dog of its alleged dangerous propensities.

In Hall v. Robertson County, Tennessee, No. M2025-00163-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2026), the plaintiffs filed a negligence claim under the GTLA against a county after the wife was bitten by the dog her husband had adopted from the county shelter. The dog came into county custody when a woman called animal control to report a stray dog. The woman said that she was afraid that if she left her home, the dog would attack, but the woman did not see the dog bite anyone. The dog was retrieved without incident and was observed by the employees at the shelter for 26 days. During that time, no employees noticed any aggressive behavior. The dog was allowed to lay by the front desk and interact with a child during its stay.

After the dog was approved for adoption, the plaintiff husband adopted the dob. The dog began coughing up clear liquid after leaving the shelter, and it was diagnosed by a vet with kennel cough and congestive heart failure. When the plaintiff husband returned to the shelter to retrieve certain items, a worker allegedly replied to the news that the dog had heart failure by saying “you should have seen her when we first got her…she was holy hell.”

September 3, 2026

Employee’s tort claim against employer barred by workers’ compensation settlement

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

An injured employee who entered into a settlement agreement with her employer was barred by workers’ compensation law from later bringing a tort action against the employer, despite the settlement agreement stating that the parties disputed whether the claim was compensable and that the settlement was “on a doubtful and disputed basis[.]”

In Kennard v. Mid-South Transportation Management, Inc., No. W2025-00997-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2026), the plaintiff was employed by the defendant. The plaintiff had complained about being threatened by a co-worker, and though the co-worker was terminated, he later attacked the plaintiff with a baseball bat in the defendant employer’s parking lot.

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a settlement agreement, which provided that the plaintiff would receive a one-time lump sum payment of $11,250. The settlement agreement stated that the “parties dispute whether this claim is compensable,” and that it was a “doubtful and disputed settlement.” The settlement agreement also stated that it was a “voluntary settlement of all issues,” and that if the case were tried, the compensation received might be higher.

September 1, 2026

Slander claim dismissed under TPPA.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

A slander case based on a homeowner’s complaint filed with the Tennessee Board of Licensing Contractor dismissed under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”) was affirmed on appeal.

In Hampton v. Millsaps, No. M2024-01036-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2026), the plaintiff homeowners sued the defendant contractor after disputes arose surrounding home construction the defendant performed. The defendant filed a construction lien based on alleged nonpayment under the parties’ contract, which led the plaintiffs to file this action for invalid lien, breach of contract, and additional claims.

In response to the complaint, the defendant filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting a claim for slander against the plaintiff homeowners. The contractor asserted that the homeowners committed slander when they made allegedly false statements to the state licensing board. The homeowners filed a petition to dismiss the slander claim under the TPPA, which the trial court granted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

July 17, 2026

Developer’s failure to install proper erosion control created temporary nuisance.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where a developer failed to install proper erosion control, causing recurring sediment runoff into a pond owned by a neighbor, the trial court’s ruling that the nuisance was temporary was affirmed.

In Lippert v. B&D Real Estate Properties, LLC, No. E2024-01676-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2026), the plaintiffs owned property next to a neighborhood being developed by the defendant. The plaintiffs land included a pond. While developing the neighborhood, the defendant failed to use proper erosion control measures, and the plaintiffs began experiencing runoff issues in their pond. Significant amounts of dirt and silt washed into the pond, and the water became discolored, especially after rain.

The plaintiffs first complained to the state in December 2016. In 2016 and 2017, the defendant took remedial measures that temporarily resolved the issues. As the defendant continued developing the neighborhood, though, it stopped responding to the plaintiffs’ concerns. The plaintiffs filed this complaint in March 2020.

July 16, 2026

Denial of continuance and dismissal of HCLA case pending for six years affirmed.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the plaintiffs submitted no medical evidence supporting their motion to continue the trial of their HCLA claim, and the case had been pending for more than six years, denial of the continuance and dismissal of the case was affirmed.

In Wilson v. Mickles, No. E2025-00349-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2026), the plaintiffs filed a health care liability claim against the defendant based on alleged injuries the plaintiff wife suffered during a dental procedure. The complaint was filed in 2018, and the case was set for trial for November 2023. After several agreed continuances, the case was reset for trial for December 2024. In November, however, the plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the trial, stating that the plaintiff wife was having significant health problems. No medical evidence was attached to the motion.

The defendant opposed the continuance, pointing out that the plaintiff had requested a continuance before due to the same health issues. The defendant argued that the case had been pending for over six years, that it had been continued many times, and that there was no assurance that the plaintiff would be able to participate in a continued trial.

July 8, 2026

Amendment to name correct property owner in premises liability case did not relate back.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where the plaintiff filed suit against the wrong corporate defendant and had no proof that the correct defendant had notice of the suit within the time constraints mandated by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03, the trial court should not have granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend and allowed the claim against the new defendant to relate back to the filing of the complaint.

In Coleman v. CBL & Associates, Inc., No. W2025-01080-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 1, 2026), the plaintiff had a car accident due to a sinkhole in the parking lot of a mall. The plaintiff filed a premises liability suit against CBL & Associates, Inc. (“Associates”), who he alleged owned the mall. In Associates’ answer, it denied owning the mall.

After the plaintiff had conducted written discovery, Associates filed a motion for summary judgment. Associates argued that it did not own the mall, but that the mall was actually owned by Old Hickory Mall Venture II, LLC. The plaintiff responded that Old Hickory Mall Venture was an alter ego of Associates, but on the morning of the summary judgment hearing, Associates noted for the first time the existence of a Delaware-based corporation, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. (“Properties”). Associates argued that all references to CBL at the mall or on the mall website were to Properties, not Associates. Based on this information, the trial court granted summary judgment to Associates.