571 S.W.3d 727
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- James and Janie Heflin, elderly bank customers, made two large cash withdrawals from Iberiabank in March 2009 ($205,478.48 and $82,928).
- After the second withdrawal a teller, Lakesha Thomas, allegedly accessed Heflin’s account/address and told her husband, Rodricko Thomas, who robbed Mr. Heflin the same day; a later access to the earlier withdrawal preceded a second robbery by Mr. Thomas.
- The Heflins sued Iberiabank, Iberiabank entities, and the Thomases asserting negligence, respondeat superior, breach of confidential relationship, violation of the Financial Records Privacy Act, negligent hiring/training/supervision, and related claims.
- The trial court granted the bank’s Tennessee Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, finding the bank owed no duty to prevent these third-party crimes and dismissing the other claims; the Thomases were later default-judged separately.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: it found many issues waived due to the appellants’ noncompliant brief and, on the merits, held that the complaint failed to state actionable claims for the remaining theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty/negligence — bank’s duty to prevent third-party crimes | Heflin: bank negligently disbursed large cash publicly and failed to warn/protect customer; bank employees’ access to records made robberies foreseeable | Iberia: no legal duty to prevent independent criminal acts of third parties; pleadings insufficient to show foreseeability | Waived on briefing grounds for many arguments; on merits, court affirmed dismissal — no duty shown to prevent third-party crimes |
| Respondeat superior / vicarious liability | Heflin: bank should be liable for employee’s misconduct (argues corporate responsibility for employee acts) | Iberia: employee’s criminal acts were outside scope of employment; vicarious liability inappropriate | Waived for lack of authority and inadequate briefing; employee criminal acts not within scope, dismissal affirmed |
| Financial Records Privacy Act (Tenn. Code Ann. §45-10-103(1)(A)) | Heflin: teller unlawfully accessed and disclosed financial records (customer address and transaction info) | Iberia: statute permits access by bank employees; no unlawful disclosure by the bank under that provision | Dismissal affirmed — employee access by a bank employee falls within statutory allowance |
| Breach of confidential relationship | Heflin: bank breached confidence by permitting access/disclosure of address/account info causing harm | Iberia: bank did not obtain any benefit or exercise dominion/control to advantage; no elements pled | Dismissal affirmed — complaint failed to allege bank used confidences to obtain advantage or benefit |
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision/retention | Heflin: bank failed to hire/supervise/train employees to prevent misuse of customer information | Iberia: complaint lacks allegations showing employee unfitness or bank knowledge of such, and appellants failed to support arguments on appeal | Dismissal affirmed; claims waived or insufficiently pleaded for failure to allege employee unfitness or supporting authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for Rule 12.02(6) dismissal and pleading requirements)
- Lett v. Collis Foods, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (elements of negligence claim)
- Tucker v. Sierra Builders, 180 S.W.3d 109 (Tenn. 2005) (elements for vicarious liability/respondeat superior)
- Washington v. 822 Corp., 43 S.W.3d 491 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (employer liability under respondeat superior)
- Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) (elements for breach of confidential relationship)
- Kelly v. Allen, 558 S.W.2d 845 (Tenn. 1977) (dominance/control element for confidential relationship)
- Bazemore v. Performance Food Grp., 478 S.W.3d 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (negligent hiring/supervision principles)