Supreme Court of Tennessee Disallows Prejudgment Interest in a Personal Injury Case Arising from a Claim Against the Plaintiff's UM Carrier Solely

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has released its opinion in Haddon v. Vanlier, No. M2023-01151-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 12, 2026). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this case, we determine whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in an action brought against a tortfeasor and defended by an uninsured motorist carrier under Tennessee’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-1201–1206 (2016 & Supp. 2025). The trial court determined that Plaintiff Cinda Haddon could not recover prejudgment interest because her claim was for personal injury. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Ms. Haddon brought a contract action. Haddon v. Vanlier, No. M2023-01151-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 4590434, at *2–3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. March 17, 2025). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the trial court for a determination of prejudgment interest. Id. at *5. Upon review, we find that this is a personal injury action. Because prejudgment interest is not available in a personal injury action, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court denying Ms. Haddon prejudgment interest. 

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/yv7sxs5f>.

NOTE: This opinion is correct in its analysis and conclusion under Tennessee’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-1201–1206 (2016 & Supp. 2025).

Rare Case from the Supreme Court of the United States Regarding Medical Malpractice (and Civil Procedure): State-law Filing Requirement That Was in Conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Is Displaced by Federal Rules

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued its opinion in Berk v Choy, 607 U.S. _____ (2026). While I normally post the syllabus from Tennessee state-court opinions here, the one from this slip opinion is a little long; because of that, I offer this analysis instead: 

SCOTUS reviewed the case and held that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Court reasoned that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely Rule 8, which governs what must be pleaded in a complaint that is filed to commence a civil action, sets the standard for pleadings and does not require supporting evidence such as an affidavit. Because Rule 8 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act that regulates the manner and means by which claims are presented, it displaces the contrary Delaware law. SCOTUS reversed the Third Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but disagreeing with the analysis. Her Honor is of the opinion that Rules 3 and 12 are more relevant to the analysis. 

Here is a link to both opinions: <https://tinyurl.com/kbwer5rm>.

NOTE: This opinion is correct and settles a lot of uncertainty that had surrounded medical malpractice claims filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: Jury Verdict for the Defense Upheld on Appeal

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee recently released its second opinion in Davis v. Ellis, No. W2024-01467-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability matter. The plaintiff first appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant physician. This court reversed that judgment in 2020. Upon remand, a trial before a jury resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff again appeals. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/4mdvvxhz>.

NOTE: This opinion touches upon many aspects of a jury trial and an appeal therefrom. For example, it addresses the standard of review on an appeal from a jury verdict; a trial judge's function as the thirteenth juror; errata sheets; evidentiary issues; expert witness disclosures under Rule 26 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; jury instructions; and awards of discretionary costs. This is a must-read opinion for any Tennessee trial lawyer—especially one who handles health care liability actions (f/k/a medical malpractice cases).

This appeal is the second one in this case. The first one is addressed in a prior blog post that can be viewed at this link, to wit: <https://tinyurl.com/y94mzd8w>. 

Trial Court's Evidentiary Rulings, Which Were Discretionary, Upheld on Appeal; Sanctions for a Frivolous Appeal Against the Defense Also Awarded

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee has released its opinion in Pajazetovic v. Baker, No. M2024-00372-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this automobile collision case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant challenges several rulings related to the admission and testimony of the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert. Because the defendant failed to file a motion for new trial raising these challenges, we conclude that they are waived, and so we affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

Here is a link to that opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/yx588k9c>.

NOTE: This is the correct result (as well as a cautionary tale). 

Trial Court's Grant of the Defense's Motion for Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal Because of the Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Discovery Deadlines, Etc.; Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal Awarded

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee has issued its opinion in Metcalf v. Woodard, No. W2024-01321-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This appeal arises from a personal injury action following a motor vehicle collision in Shelby County, Tennessee. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining negligence claim after concluding that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence as to breach of duty and causation. We affirm.

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/2rz632kk>.

NOTE: This opinion serves as a cautionary tale of what not to do in a trial court and on appeal (because summary judgment was granted in the trial court and in addition to losing on appeal, sanctions for a frivolous appeal were awarded). 

New Health Care Liability Action Opinion: The Supreme Court of Tennessee Reverses the Court of Appeals of Tennessee and Holds That Grandmother Can Be a "Claimant" (as "Next Friend") for Her Grandchildren for Purposes of Authorizing Presuit Notices to Be Served under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act

The Tennessee Supreme Court has released its opinion in Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, No. E2023-00027-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 13, 2025). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

This case clarifies who may be “the claimant authorizing the notice” under the health care liability pre-suit notice statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(B). Ashley Denson died after being admitted to the hospital. Her mother Bobbie Jo Denson took in Ashley’s two minor children and obtained legal custody of them. Bobbie Jo sent pre-suit notice to defendant health care providers identifying herself as the “claimant authorizing the notice” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(B). She subsequently filed suit on her own behalf and on behalf of the minor children, ultimately pursuing the claim solely on behalf of the minor children. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Bobbie Jo did not comply with pre-suit notice requirements because she did not identify the children as the claimants. The trial court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but granted their motion for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Bobbie Jo did not comply with pre-suit notice requirements because the children were the claimants but not identified as such. We now reverse. Bobbie Jo Denson is “the claimant authorizing the notice” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26 121(a)(2)(B), as minor children cannot authorize pre-suit notice and file suit on their own behalf. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court.  

Here is a link to that opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/29c64mya>.

NOTE: This is a correct decision on so many levels, and I applaud our state's High Court for reaching the correct decision in this case. 

New Laws Effective in Tennessee as of July 1, 2025

Here is an abstract of the new laws that go into effect in Tennessee today, July 1, 2025, to wit: <https://tinyurl.com/5chndhen>.