Jamison v. Norman

• Decision Date: 15 May 1989
• Citation: 771 S.W.2d 408
• Parties: Forrest R. JAMISON, et ux., Appellees, v. Jack NORMAN, Jr., et al., Appellants. 771 S.W.2d 408
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 408

771 S.W.2d 408

Forrest R. JAMISON, et ux., Appellees, v. Jack NORMAN, Jr., et al., Appellants.

771 S.W.2d 408

Supreme Court of Tennessee,

at Nashville.

May 15, 1989.

Douglas Fisher, Howell, Fisher and Branham, Nashville, for appellants.

Tennessee Bar Ass'n, Hal D. Hardin, Gen. Counsel, Nashville, amicus curiae.

Thomas L. Reed, Jr., Reed and Watson, Murfreesboro, for appellees.

OPINION

COOPER, Justice.

This is a malpractice action against an attorney. The trial judge dismissed the action on motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the action was filed timely, and that there was a genuine issue of fact concerning the applicable professional standards under the circumstances of this case. We find from the undisputed facts that the attorney did not breach any duty owed the plaintiffs, that the worker's compensation claim that is the basis of the malpractice action was excluded from the employment contract, and that the plaintiff's action should have been dismissed on motion for summary judgment.

The parties agree that the following statement of facts set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals is accurate:

The plaintiff, Forrest R. Jamison, worked in Nashville for Ray Murphy, d/b/a Big R Truck Salvage. In February of 1982 Mr. Jamison was in Atlanta Georgia working within the course and scope of his employment when he sustained severe and permanent personal injuries in an accident. Shortly after the accident Mr. Jamison was transferred to the Baptist hospital in Nashville. The plaintiff's father J. C. Jamison contacted the defendant Jack Norman, Jr., concerning an action against the persons who caused the accident. Mr. Norman met with the plaintiff in the hospital and agreed to represent him in the personal injury claim. Apparently Mr. Jamison had already been contacted by his worker's compensation carrier, and so he did not seek Mr. Norman's advice on the worker's compensation claim. Mr. Norman did tell Mr. Jamison that, in his opinion, the worker's compensation carrier would be entitled to reimbursement for any of the benefits paid to Mr. Jamison out of any recovery from the defendants in the tort claim. This advice was consistent with Tennessee law.

On September 27, 1982, Mr. Jamison settled his worker's compensation claim with his employer's insurance carrier and this settlement was approved by the circuit court in Davidson County. Mr. Norman was not consulted about the settlement nor was he ever involved with the claim. Mr. Jamison's worker's compensation benefits came to approximately $79,000.

Mr. Norman tried to negotiate a settlement of the personal injury claim on behalf of Mr. Jamison. When it became evident that these efforts would be unfruitful and that it would be necessary to file suit in Georgia, Mr. Norman recommended an attorney in Atlanta for that purpose. On January 14, 1983, he wrote to the Atlanta attorney, who replied on January 19, 1983, and agreed to talk to Mr. Jamison concerning the case. Shortly thereafter Mr. Jamison and father flew to Atlanta and employed the Atlanta attorney to handle the tort claim. Mr. Norman was not involved in the case after that time.

On February 7, 1984, Mr. Jamison was advised by another attorney that he could have made a claim for worker's compensation benefits in Georgia and that Georgia law did not allow the worker's compensation carrier subrogation rights in the personal injury claim. Thus, if this advice was correct, by bringing the worker's compensation claim in Georgia it would not have been necessary to...