Day on Torts
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.
After signing the settlement agreement, the plaintiff employee filed a tort case against several defendants, including the defendant employer. The employee moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that her tort claim against the employer was not barred as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion, but in this opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the tort claim was “barred by the exclusive remedy provision” of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law.
In Tennessee, “workers’ compensation benefits are usually an employee’s exclusive remedy against his or her employer” when the employee has suffered an employment-related injury. (internal citation omitted). The sole issue here was “whether [the plaintiff] received the benefit of any of the rights and remedies offered by the [Tennessee Workers Compensation Law], thus limiting her to such relief and barring her tort claims.” The Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff employee was barred from bringing this tort claim.
The Court noted that “doubtful and disputed settlements are contemplated” by workers’ compensation laws, and that the statute does not require a settlement amount to “bear[] any resemblance to the recovery possible if [the plaintiff’s] workers’ compensation claim was found compensable and fully adjudicated.” The Court explained that there was no support for the plaintiff’s assertion that her settlement agreement somehow preserved her right to bring a tort claim against her employer. The Court further noted that the employee was represented by counsel at all times and that she “intentionally availed herself of at least one remedy expressly available under” the workers’ compensation law.
Because the plaintiff “did receive some workers’ compensation benefit for her injuries,” her tort claim was barred.
This opinion was released one month after oral arguments.
Note: The original incident happened over seven years ago. And this is an interlocutory appeal.