Economic Loss Doctrine Prevents Double-Dipping in Damages

Sometimes I use this blog as a notepad for obscure legal theories that I’m going to use later.

Like this one, on the “economic loss doctrine.”

If you have a plaintiff who sues you both for breach of contract damages and for tort damages arising out of the same transaction, you may be able to get the tort claims dismissed, per a Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion released yesterday.

The case is Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Navistar Inc. et. al,  W201800084COAR3CV,  2019 WL 3812483 (Tenn. App. Aug. 14, 2019), and it discussed this rule, known as the “economic loss doctrine.” The theory was “created by the courts to avoid the ‘coming collision between warranty and contract on the one hand and the torts of strict liability, negligence, fraud and misrepresentation on the other’.”

The heart of the concept is stated as:

[C]ontract and tort are separate and distinct areas of the law that provide separate and distinct remedies. A party who enters into a contract which contains terms that limit recovery in the event of a breach [is] typically unable to circumvent such provisions by alleging a tort occurred as well. The warranty or contract’s terms and conditions set forth the rules governing the relationship, and tort law does not expand the remedies of the contract beyond the agreed-to terms. Absent personal injury or damage to other property, the sole remedy lies in contract.

The theory is that a party to a contract is free to contract for the terms of their purchase agreement, and this doctrine protects the right to allocate risk in a transaction.

A good “real life” example of this would be where a party limits the damages for breach in a real estate transaction, such as by providing that damages are limited to a return of the deposit to the buyer. Under this theory, the buyer would not be able to, later, subvert that contract provision by suing for damages in tort.

New Court of Appeals Opinion provides good statement of doctrine of Res Judicata

As lawyers, the business model is fairly simple: We sell our time, multiplied by our hourly rates.

This creates a huge disconnect between clients and lawyers. All clients want their matters resolved in their favor, but also quickly, smartly, and cost-efficiently (that’s a nice way to say for as little legal fees as possible). On the other hand, the lawyer-industrial-complex wants lawyers to ponder, research, litigate, bill, examine, depose, etc. (i.e. for as many billable hours as possible).

First off, run away from lawyers like that.

Second, if you’re a lawyer and want clients to be happy, you should read this new Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion, which discusses the concept of res judicata. That’s a doctrine that allows parties to avoid unnecessary, duplication litigation, when the issues have already been decided by a court.

The facts aren’t that important, so I’ll just focus on the legal discussion.  The Court wrote: Continue reading “New Court of Appeals Opinion provides good statement of doctrine of Res Judicata”

341 Meeting: Suing Your Own Employees; Public Schools; Urgent Political Spam

Hassling Poor People, Who Happen to be Your Own Employees. When the economy hit rock bottom in 2009 or so, all kinds of doctors, lawyers, private schools hired me to collect their debts. Many had never dealt with bad debt before, or the awful circumstances that lead to defaults. They just saw the bad debt and thought it could be an income stream for them. It was an eye-opening lesson for many.

Since then, I occasionally have had to tell some of my clients that some debt isn’t worth collecting, whether it’s a low return on investment or, frankly, just bad PR.

This story out of Memphis reminds me of that.   NPR reports that Methodist Le Bonheur Hospital is making national news for its practice of suing its own employees when they can’t pay their medical bills, and then using some pretty aggressive collection tactics when they can’t pay the judgments rendered in the lawsuits.

…what is striking at Methodist, the largest hospital system in the Memphis region, is how many of the patients being sued are the hospital’s own employees. Hardly a week goes by in which Methodist workers aren’t on the court docket fighting debt lawsuits filed by their employer.

That’s a really bad look, especially in a climate where employers are criticized for not paying a living wage and also terrible health insurance benefits. Continue reading “341 Meeting: Suing Your Own Employees; Public Schools; Urgent Political Spam”

Everybody Loves “It City”: United States Supreme Court to hear dispute over land deal in The Nations in November.

The Nashville Bankruptcy Bar got some exciting news from the United States Supreme Court recently, as the Big Court granted certiorari to consider a novel issue of law: Whether an order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).

For you real law nerds out there, here’s a copy of the case schedule.

You’ll note that cert was granted in May 2019, and the oral argument is set for November 13, 2019. (I have no idea why this news from May 2019 is just now hitting the local news.)

But, to our local bar, this is newsworthy because the United States Supreme Court is said to grant “cert” in extremely rare circumstances, said to be less than 0.01% of matters presented to it. Continue reading “Everybody Loves “It City”: United States Supreme Court to hear dispute over land deal in The Nations in November.”

Tennessee Supreme Court provides deep analysis on elements of “novation”

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued a new opinion today, which is notable for a few different reasons.

First, it discusses a legal dispute over The Braxton, which was a luxury high-rise condo building in Ashland City, Tennessee, and which is considered by some to be one of the first big development “fails” of Great Recession Nashville.

Second, the case provides a comprehensive analysis of the law on novation.

The case is TWB Architects, Inc. v.  The Braxton, LLC  No. M2017-00423-SC-R11-CV (Tenn., July 22, 2019).

At its most basic, “novation” is when a party substitutes a new obligation for an existing obligation, such that, after the novation, the second obligation is the only legally binding remaining obligation. Continue reading “Tennessee Supreme Court provides deep analysis on elements of “novation””

Tennessee Court of Appeals shows analysis on “reasonable” attorney fees.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday in a collection case, which has some really useful analysis on the reasonableness of attorney’s fees. This is an issue near and dear to my heart.

A full copy of the opinion, Tennessee Farmers Cooperative v. Ted Rains,  M201801097COAR3CV, 2019 WL 3229686 (Tenn. App. July 18, 2019), can be found here.

Continue reading “Tennessee Court of Appeals shows analysis on “reasonable” attorney fees.”

Want to be a better lawyer? Attend a Court of Appeals argument.

I recently had two oral arguments set on the same day in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which was a fairly stressful experience. But, by the time the second docket came around, I had a really good idea of where to go, where to sit, how the dockets would start, who would say what, and all the little details.

Honestly, I was a little irritated at myself for not attending an oral argument docket a few months before, just for the experience and insight.

So, here’s my advice to you: If you’ve got a appeal pending and haven’t Continue reading “Want to be a better lawyer? Attend a Court of Appeals argument.”