|
The Tennessee Supreme Court in Brenda
Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, LP, No. M2013-00270-SC-R11-CV, 2015 WL 294635
(Tenn. 2015) has provided an opinion that attempts to clarify how
statute of limitations should be applied for Tennessee cases. Over the years numerous Tennessee appellate decisions
have cited the “gravaman of the complaint” rule in order to determine which
statute of limitations applies to a case.
(Benz-Elliott
at 7, 8). In this case, the Tennessee
Supreme Court noted that defining exactly what this actually means has proven difficult
over time. If you desire to read a
detailed analysis of the historical citations to this rule and the general “fuzziness”
in the actual application of this rule, this case provides a lengthy discussion
of these issues. For the purposes of
this blog post, however, I am mainly going to address the ultimate conclusion
of the Tennessee Supreme Court that is an attempt to clarify confusing
pre-existing precedent.
Ultimately, the Tennessee Supreme Court
found that when choosing the appropriate statute of limitations for a case
“courts must ascertain the gravaman of each claim, not the gravaman of the
complaint in its entirety.” Benz-Elliott
at 8. The Court then found the
court’s should use a specific “two-step approach” test that has previously been
discussed in Tennessee decisions in order to determine the gravaman of a
claim. This holding is stated as
follows:
Today we clarify
that the two-step approach articulated in Vance and applied in Alexander and Harvest Corp.
is the correct framework for courts to employ when ascertaining the gravamen of
a claim for the purpose of choosing the applicable statute of limitations. When
utilizing this approach, a court must first consider the legal basis of the
claim and then consider the type of injuries for which damages are sought. This
analysis is necessarily fact-intensive and requires a careful examination of
the allegations of the complaint as to each claim for the types of injuries
asserted and damages sought. Contract
Law and Practice § 12:78, at 595 (2006).
This case provides an important
clarification from the Tennessee Supreme Court on exactly how to determine the
appropriate statute of limitations for a case.
The two important takeaways from this case are (1) it is no longer the “gravaman
of the complaint” taken as a whole, rather an analysis is required of the gravamen
of each individual claim. Further, (2) the
“two-step approach” test that has previously been applied in prior decisions is
the appropriate test to determine the “gravaman of the claim” for purposes of
determining the statute of limitations.
I think this is a more clear approach enunciated
by the Tennessee Supreme Court, however, I think that there can still be quite
a bit of confusion over the “two-step approach” that is articulated by the
court. The court noted that the two-step
approach is a “fact intensive” examination so I believe there will be
significant disputes about the proper application of the two-step
approach. Regardless, these will be largely
factual determinations by the trial court’s that will likely be afforded great
deference by Tennessee Appellate Courts.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|