CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. No. E2008-01758-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court heard an interlocutory appeal to determine if the Tennessee Title Pledge Act (TTPA) permits a private right of action by pledgors against title pledge lenders for charging excessive interest and prohibited fees. The trial court initially dismissed the claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding such a right. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the TTPA does not explicitly or implicitly create a private right of action. The Court found the TTPA's intent to be regulatory and penal, without legislative support for private enforcement, and concluded that the statute of limitations provision only modifies existing common law actions. The case was remanded to the Hamilton County Circuit Court for remaining claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationTennessee Title Pledge ActClass ActionConsumer Protection ActInterlocutory AppealMotion to DismissLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionPredatory Lending
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. M2010-02553-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

Jeffrey L. Dillon v. NICA, Inc.

Jeffrey L. Dillon, a courier, sued NICA, Inc., Thomas M. McGrath, and others after his insurance claim for a workplace injury was denied. He alleged breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court found Dillon to be an employee, not an independent contractor, and a jury found NICA and McGrath liable for violating the Consumer Protection Act, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of employment status and the Consumer Protection Act violation. However, it vacated the punitive damages award, citing that the Act does not authorize such damages, and remanded the case for consideration of treble damages.

Workers' CompensationConsumer Protection ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusInsurance BenefitsPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesBreach of ContractFraudAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chandler v. Prudential Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Dorothy G. Chandler sued Prudential Insurance Company of America after the termination of her long-term disability benefits. She alleged bad faith, outrageous conduct, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Prudential on the outrageous conduct, tort of bad faith, and Consumer Protection Act claims. Plaintiff later nonsuited her claim for the statutory bad-faith penalty. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the statutory bad-faith penalty (T.C.A. § 56-7-105) provides the exclusive remedy for bad faith actions against insurers in Tennessee. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for outrageous conduct and that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act was not applicable based on the facts presented.

Disability BenefitsInsurance PolicyBad Faith ClaimOutrageous ConductConsumer Protection ActSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewInsurance LawTort Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Act for Health v. Case Management Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs Act for Health d/b/a Professional Case Management (PCM) and its subsidiary PCM of Tennessee, Inc. (PCMT) sued defendant Case Management Associates, Inc. d/b/a Freedom Care (Freedom Care). Plaintiffs provide in-home care under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and allege Freedom Care operates unlawfully in Tennessee without proper licensing and a certificate of need. Plaintiffs also claimed tortious interference with business relationships, tortious inducement to breach employment agreements, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and common law unfair competition. The Court found Freedom Care's licensing arrangement with Jellico Community Hospital unlawful and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on that issue. It denied summary judgment for both parties on the TCPA and inducement claims, but granted summary judgment to Freedom Care on the unfair competition claim. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

Workers' CompensationHome Health ServicesLicensing RegulationsCertificate of NeedTortious InterferenceUnfair CompetitionTennessee Consumer Protection ActRestrictive CovenantsTrade SecretsSummary Judgment
References
29
Case No. M2010-01955-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2011

State of Tennessee, by and through Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company

This case involves the State of Tennessee suing NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company, a foreign tobacco product manufacturer, for failing to make required escrow deposits under the Tobacco Escrow Fund Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Sumatra due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, concluding that Sumatra had sufficient minimum contacts with the state through its intentional nationwide distribution system. The court found that Sumatra purposefully availed itself of the Tennessee market and that exercising personal jurisdiction was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the Escrow Fund Act against Sumatra's affirmative defenses, remanding the case for the calculation of escrow funds owed by Sumatra.

Personal JurisdictionTobacco Escrow Fund ActMinimum ContactsStream of CommerceForeign CorporationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Statutes
References
133
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chilton Air Cooled Engines, Inc. v. Omark Industries, Inc.

Chilton Air Cooled Engines, Inc., a Tennessee distributor, sued Omark Industries, Inc., an Oregon manufacturer, following the termination of their distribution agreement. Chilton alleged federal antitrust violations and several state law claims, including a demand for Omark to repurchase inventory, wrongful termination based on breach of an implied covenant of good faith, malicious interference with prospective business relations, equitable recoupment of investment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Omark filed a motion for partial dismissal targeting these state law claims. The court, applying Illinois' choice of law rules, determined that Oregon law governed contract claims and Tennessee law applied to tort claims. The court dismissed all state law claims, concluding that Oregon law permits termination of at-will contracts for any reason, and Tennessee law does not recognize the tort of interference with prospective business relations for damages sought by corporations under the Consumer Protection Act.

Contract LawDistribution AgreementAt-Will ContractChoice of LawFederal Antitrust ClaimsState Law ClaimsWrongful TerminationImplied Covenant of Good FaithRepurchase of InventoryEquitable Recoupment
References
26
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. M2014-02450-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Kenneth D. Hardy v. Tennessee State University

Kenneth D. Hardy, a former state university police officer, sued Tennessee State University and other entities, alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under various acts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on the sex discrimination and Tennessee Public Protection Act claims. However, it reversed summary judgment on specific retaliation claims related to a transfer and tardiness warnings, and also on the hostile work environment claim concerning numerous write-ups. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these specific claims, while constructive discharge was affirmed.

Employment LawRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentSex DiscriminationTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Human Rights ActTitle VIIAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. M2013-00904-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2014

Old Republic Insurance Company v. State of Tennessee

Five Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies challenged Tennessee's imposition of retaliatory insurance premium taxes. The core issue was whether Pennsylvania's surcharges for three Workmen's Compensation funds (Administration, Subsequent Injury, and Supersedeas) applied to Tennessee-domiciled insurers in Pennsylvania, thereby triggering Tennessee's retaliatory tax statute. The Tennessee Claims Commission ruled for the state, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The court found that Pennsylvania law indeed imposes these surcharges on insurers, creating a heavier burden on Tennessee companies and justifying the retaliatory tax. The court also rejected arguments concerning due process, the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, and Uniformity Clause violations.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance Premium TaxWorkers' Compensation FundsStatutory InterpretationInterstate CommerceConstitutional LawState Tax LawInsurance RegulationTax RefundsImplied Repeal Doctrine
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 10,089 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational