Day on Torts
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.
During their dispute with the contractor, the plaintiff homeowners performed online searches for the contractor’s name or his purported license number in Tennessee’s online contractor license database. The homeowners were unable to locate any license for the defendant. The homeowners also called the licensing board, who stated that no license could be located. Based on this information, the homeowners filed a complaint with the licensing board stating that the defendant performed work on their home as an unlicensed contractor. This complaint was the basis for the contractor’s slander claim against the homeowners.
On appeal, the defendant contractor argued that the trial court erred by dismissing the slander claim under the TPPA. The TPPA requires courts to engage in a burden-shifting analysis after a TPPA dismissal petition has been filed. The Court must first determine whether the TPPA applies. If the TPPA applies, the claim should be dismissed unless the party bringing the claim “establishes a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim[.]” Further, the court should dismiss the claim if the petitioning party can establish a defense.
In the instant matter, the Court quickly determined that the TPPA applied to the slander claim. The TPPA applies if the claim against the petitioning party “is based on or relates to or is in response to that party’s exercise of certain protected rights,” including the right to free speech. (internal citation omitted). For purposes of the TPPA, the exercise of the right to free speech is defined as “a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern…that falls within the protection of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution.” (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-103(3)). The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that a contractor operating without a license would be a matter of public concern. The Court noted that such a situation could create issues related to public health or safety, environmental or community welfare, or goods or services placed in the market.
Having determined that the TPPA applied, the slander claim was subject to dismissal unless the contractor could establish a prima facie case for each element of the claim. In order to establish his claim for slander, the contractor was required to show that the homeowners made the licensing board complaint (and allegedly false statements therein) with knowledge that the complaint was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth. The contractor could not make this showing. The evidence demonstrated that the homeowners diligently researched the existence of a contractor’s license in the defendant’s name, and that they called the state agency to confirm their online search results. The Court wrote that the homeowners had a good faith basis for the statements in their licensing board complaint. Because the contractor could not establish the elements of his slander claim, dismissal under the TPPA was appropriate. Both the dismissal and the award of attorney’s fees to the homeowners was affirmed.
The Court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of the contractor’s Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment. The contractor attached a document to the motion purporting to show that the contractor was licensed at the time of the work. The Court of Appeals, however, pointed out that this information was available to the contractor when the TPPA petition was pending, but the contractor failed to produce it at that time. The contractor “failed to show that the new evidence was not known to them prior to or during trial and that it could not have been known to them through exercise of reasonable diligence.” Denial of the motion to alter or amend was affirmed.
The TPPA, a relatively new statute, is being used more and more frequently in Tennessee. Litigants preparing a case would be wise to consider whether the TPPA might apply to any of their potential claims.
This opinion was released two months after oral arguments.