Articles Posted in Civil Procedure

A personal injury plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint and assert a claim against a new defendant well after the statute of limitations ran when the original defendant had written consent to file a new answer, and that new answer included allegations against the new defendant.

In Johnson v. Airtight Resources Inc., No. M2023-01336-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2026) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Airtight after he fell through a second floor garage door at his mother’s home. Airtight answered the complaint by alleging that an unknown defendant fraudulently obtained a permit to do the door work in its name.

In May 2021, well after the one-year statute of limitations had run, the parties held a case management conference. During that conference, an order was drafted indicating that Airtight intended to file an amended answer naming Phillip Taylor (“Taylor”) as a responsible party. Counsel for all parties signed this order, and soon thereafter the amended answer was filed. Within five days, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Taylor as a defendant. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Airtight did not have permission to file an amended pleading, and therefore the statutory grace period for adding a new party under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 was not triggered. The trial court agreed and granted dismissal, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Where a car accident defendant failed to file a motion for new trial raising certain evidentiary issues, those issues had been waived on appeal.

In Pajazetovic v. Baker, No. M2024-00372-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2025), the plaintiff was involved in a car accident. The plaintiff filed suit against the driver and the owner of the other car, and the defendant’s underinsured motorist carrier was also served.

Prior to the first trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist, arguing that his opinion was based solely on his determination of which witnesses were most credible rather than on “calculations or other scientific explanations.” The trial court denied the motion in limine, the accident reconstructionist testified, and the first trial resulted in a hung jury. The accident reconstructionist passed away before the second trial, and the trial court ruled that the expert was unavailable under Rule 804. The trial court allowed his testimony from the first trial to be used. This second trial resulted in a jury verdict for plaintiff of more than $120,000.

Where a Florida general contractor allegedly used a fraudulent invoice to defraud a Tennessee company, the Court of Appeals ruled that Tennessee could exercise personal jurisdiction over the general contractor for the plaintiffs’ tort claims.

In Hannah Development, LLC v. Maverick General Contractors, LLC, No. M2024-01592-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2025), the plaintiff, a Tennessee company, had worked with the defendants, a Florida general contractor and its principal, on two homebuilding projects. The homes were built in Florida. During the construction of the homes, the defendants sent an invoice to the plaintiff that included a charge for the painting of the defendant principal’s residential fence. The expense was “fraudulently disguised…as a legitimate business expense” for the home building project. The invoice was sent to the Tennessee company, and it was paid with a Tennessee account.

When the plaintiff later learned of the fraudulent expense, it brought this tort action in Tennessee. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, the plaintiff responded with voluminous exhibits including emails, invoices, text messages, money transfers, and other documents purportedly showing that the defendants “knowingly and intentionally engaged in tortious conduct aimed at Tennessee and that they injured a Tennessee domiciliary in the State of Tennessee.” The circuit court granted dismissal, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

A mailman’s notation on a certified letter sent by the Secretary of State did not constitute proper service of process in a car accident case.

In Lowe v. Harvey, No. E2024-01588-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2025), the plaintiff and defendant were in a car accident, and the defendant lived in Indiana. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant under the Tennessee statutes addressing service of an out-of-state motorist, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-2-203 through -207. Pursuant to the statute, the plaintiff had a summons issued to the Tennessee Secretary of State, who then sent a summons to the defendant by registered mail. At the time of service in 2021, however, the postal service had “suspended its signature requirement for certified mail and registered return receipt mail because of Covid-19.” The letter to the defendant was returned with a marking made by the mail carrier in the signature space.

After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendant moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. The trial court agreed that the defendant had not been served and dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Where an HCLA plaintiff failed to provide deposition dates for her expert witness by the deadline listed in the scheduling order, but she filed a motion to revise the scheduling order on the day of the deposition deadline, exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert was too harsh a sanction and was vacated.

In Buckley v. Jackson Radiology Associates, P.A., No. W2023-01777-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2025), the plaintiff filed an HCLA suit in 2016. Due to a motion for a qualified protective order, the case was stayed pending the outcome of a separate case. After the stay was lifted, the trial court set a scheduling order in September 2021. This scheduling order was later modified to require the plaintiff to disclose her expert by February 13, 2023, and to have all expert depositions completed by June 12, 2023.

The plaintiff disclosed Dr. Esposito on February 13, 2023. Counsel for the defendants immediately requested available deposition dates. According to the defendants, they requested deposition dates several times and received no response from the plaintiff. The plaintiff explained in her appellate brief that Dr. Esposito’s wife filed for divorce during this time and he did not cope well, causing the scheduling issues.

In a negligence case, a brief reference to the lottery during opening statements and an unintentional mention of employment benefits that paid partial wages during the plaintiff’s time off work were not enough to require overturning the jury verdict for defendant.

In Campbell v. T.C. Restaurant Group, LLC, No. M2024-00362-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2025), the plaintiff filed a negligence claim against a musician and the bar at which he performed. When the musician did a birthday shoutout on stage, the plaintiff climbed onto the stage. The plaintiff stated that the musician grabbed her, spun her around, and then dropped her off the stage. The musician testified that he tried to guide the plaintiff off the stage, but she was drunk and stepped off the stage, causing her to fall. The plaintiff hit her head and was diagnosed with a concussion several days later. At trial, the plaintiff’s credibility was called into question when her testimony regarding her medical status appeared to conflict with online videos that had been posted showing her dancing.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, finding that the musician was not at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, citing two errors: 1) a reference during opening statements that the plaintiff hoped to be “a lottery lawsuit winner,” and 2) an alleged violation of the collateral source rule. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict.