Sheila Brown v. Rico Roland
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 2
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Brown was injured in a rear-end collision with Roland in Davidson County; medical bills and lost wages quantified.
- Brown filed in general sessions court seeking under $25,000, with uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage notified to State Farm.
- General Sessions dismissed Brown’s case without prejudice after the plaintiff’s counsel announced no evidence would be presented.
- Brown perfected a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court; Roland offered a $25,000 settlement; Brown accepted.
- State Farm moved to dismiss Brown’s UIM claim, arguing the damages were capped by the general sessions warrant and no amendment was filed.
- Trial court dismissed the UIM claim and denied arbitration; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are damages limited to the general sessions warrant absent amendment? | Brown argues Ware allows amendment to exceed warrant during circuit court appeal. | State Farm argues damages are capped by general sessions amount unless amended in circuit court. | Yes; damages limited to warrant unless amended. |
| Does Ware permit post-appeal amendments adding damages beyond the warrant? | Brown contends Ware permits increasing damages in circuit court. | State Farm asserts no amendment occurred, so limit remains. | Ware permits amendments, but none filed here; limitation stands. |
| Was the circuit court properly dismissing State Farm as there was no exposure beyond the warrant? | Brown sought arbitration for UM claim; no exposure asserted due to settlement and capped damages. | State Farm asserts no further damages or arbitration required. | Correct; no exposure beyond the warrant. |
| Did Brown waive the right to amend after dismissal in general sessions? | Brown attempts belated amendment; argues waiver of right to amend applies. | State Farm contends waiver and timing preclude amendment. | Waiver applies; amendment not timely filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ware v. Meharry Med. Coll., 898 S.W.2d 181 (Tenn. 1995) (de novo appeals may amend damages beyond general sessions limits)
- Vinson v. Mills, 530 S.W.2d 761 (Tenn. 1975) (informality bridge; circuit proceedings follow general sessions appeal)
- Kirby v. Cramer, 410 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn. 1967) (plaintiff creates ceiling on ad damnum by starting in general sessions)
- Graham v. Caples, 325 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2010) (de novo appeal procedures and amendments; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15 applicability)
- Crowley v. Thomas, 343 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. 2011) (amendment requirement post-de novo appeal; outcome for non-appealing plaintiff)