Homelift Of Nashville, Inc v. Porta, Inc.
M2016-00894-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 11, 2017Background
- In 2010 Jimmie Dean Browning died after falling into an elevator shaft; her estate sued Homelift (seller/installer) and ThyssenKrupp (alleged successor manufacturer). Homelift then filed a third-party complaint against Porta, Inc., alleging Porta manufactured interlock devices and seeking indemnity (including attorney’s fees).
- Homelift amended the third-party complaint multiple times; the Browning estate later settled and Homelift’s claim was dismissed, leaving the third-party action against Porta pending.
- Porta answered and twice filed counterclaims seeking dismissal and recovery of its defense costs (including attorney’s fees), but the court dismissed Porta’s counterclaim; Porta’s final answer (to the fourth amended third‑party complaint) omitted any counterclaim or prayer for fees.
- A jury trial on Homelift’s fourth amended third‑party complaint found both parties negligent but allocated 85% fault to Homelift and 15% to Porta, so Homelift recovered nothing from Porta.
- Within 30 days of final judgment, Porta moved for recovery of $234,451.59 in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, invoking the two equitable exceptions to the American Rule recognized in Pullman (implied indemnity and independent tort).
- The trial court denied Porta’s motion, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award the fees and that Porta needed to file a separate action; the Court of Appeals agreed Porta’s motion was properly denied but on pleading‑rule grounds, not lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Porta's Argument | Homelift's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees post‑trial | Trial court retained jurisdiction (case not appealed) and could adjudicate fees | Trial court lacked jurisdiction | Court of Appeals: trial court had jurisdiction (circuit court of general jurisdiction) |
| Whether Porta sufficiently pleaded entitlement to attorney’s fees under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 9.07 | Porta argued fees recoverable under Pullman exceptions and had previously pleaded fees in counterclaims | Homelift argued Porta failed to specifically plead fees in final answer and thus failed Rule 9.07 notice | Held: Porta failed to satisfy Rule 9.07; final answer omitted fees and previous counterclaims (which sought fees) were dismissed, so trial court properly denied post‑trial motion |
| Whether equitable exceptions to the American Rule (Pullman) could support fee recovery in this posture | Porta invoked implied indemnity and independent tort exceptions to justify fee award | Homelift argued no pleading notice; counterclaims dismissed; no statutory basis | Court did not reach merits of Pullman exceptions because of pleading/notice failure; denial affirmed |
| Whether Porta needed to bring a separate action to recover fees | Porta argued separate action unnecessary; fees could be awarded post‑judgment in the same case | Homelift: separate action required because fees were not pleaded | Held: Court affirmed denial of motion and indicated Porta must pursue a separate action if it wishes to recover fees (denial affirmed on pleading grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2005) (states American Rule: fees not recoverable absent statute, contract, or recognized equitable exception)
- State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186 (Tenn. 2000) (discusses limits of fee awards under American Rule)
- Pullman Standard, Inc. v. Abex Corp., 693 S.W.2d 336 (Tenn. 1985) (recognizes implied indemnity and independent tort equitable exceptions to the American Rule)
- Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003) (appellate courts must address subject matter jurisdiction regardless of preservation)
- Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (subject matter jurisdiction depends on nature of cause and relief sought)
- Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 104 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (statutory fee entitlement can excuse Rule 9.07 pleading deficiency when statute plainly authorizes fees)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice)
- In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (certain well‑established exceptions to American Rule—e.g., will construction—may permit fee awards despite pleading omissions)
- First Am. Tr. Co. v. Franklin‑Murray Dev. Co., L.P., 59 S.W.3d 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court loses authority to act after appeal is perfected)
- Marshall v. First Nat. Bank of Lewisburg, 622 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (attorney’s fees are special damages and should be specially pleaded)