Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance, No. M2008-00751-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 10/3/2008)
| Decision Date | 03 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. M2008-00751-COA-R3-CV.,M2008-00751-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | HENRY "KENT" SUDBERRY v. ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County; No. 47920; R. E. Corlew, Judge.
Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
David H. Dunaway, LaFollette, TN, for the Appellant
Elizabeth Washko, Nashville, TN, for the Appellee
J. Steven Stafford, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Alan E. Highers, P.J., W.S., and Holly M. Kirby, J., joined.
Employee/Appellant filed suit against Employer/Appellee after his employment was terminated following the settlement of a workers' compensation claim. Upon remand, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer/Appellees. Employee/Appellant appeals. Finding that Employee/Appellant did not sufficiently rebut the presumption of at-will employment and that, consequently, the one-year statute of limitations codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §28-3-104 for injuries to the person is applicable, we affirm.
This is the second appeal of this case. For purposes of this appeal, we briefly outline the relevant facts; however, a full recitation of the facts is contained in this Court's opinion in Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance, No. M2005-00280-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2091386 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2006) perm. app. denied (Tenn., Nov. 20, 2006) ("Sudberry I"). Appellant Henry "Kent" Sudberry began working at Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan") on January 31, 1983. At that time, Mr. Sudberry signed an Employment Agreement, which provided, in relevant part, that:
I understand that my employment is not for any definite term, and may be terminated at any time, without advance notice, by either myself or my employer....
* * * [The employee acknowledges that] [t]he terms contained herein are the entire terms of my employment agreement, that there are no other arrangements, agreements, or understandings, oral or in writing, regarding my present or future employment with NMMC or any of its subsidiaries and that any purported arrangements, agreements or understandings made in the future shall not be valid unless evidenced by a writing signed by a properly authorized representative of my employer.
In April of 1986, Nissan distributed an employee handbook, which states, in relevant part:
This handbook is not intended as a contract. As you share your ideas and opinions with us, there will undoubtedly be a need for policy changes to best meet your needs. In order to quickly adapt to these changes we reserve the right to revise our policies and procedures in whole or in part at any time. Updates of this handbook will be issued as necessary to keep you informed.
In November1996, Nissan distributed a revised employee handbook. The 1996 handbook reads, in relevant part, as follows:
This handbook is not intended as a contract. It will undoubtedly be changed periodically as the company attempts to adapt to ideas and opinions shared by you and your colleagues. NMMC may need to revise policies and procedures, in whole or in part, at any time, with or without notice. Updates to this book will be issued as necessary.
No other amendments to the employee handbook were made during Mr. Sudberry's tenure with Nissan.
On or about December 12, 2000, Nissan terminated Mr. Sudberry's employment for alleged violation of Mr. Sudberry's medical restrictions. More than two years after the termination of his employment, on February 26, 2003, Mr. Sudberry filed the present suit against Appellees, Royal & Sun Alliance, Investigations and Intelligence Services, Inc., Wesley Moore, M.D., Kathy Kyle, Kelly Craig, Glen Lewis, Jim Pitts, Mo Bernell, and Ronnie Hawkins.1 The specific allegations raised in the complaint were discussed in Sudberry I, to wit:
This suit arose out of Mr. Sudberry's workers' compensation claim involving injuries sustained while employed by Nissan. Apparently, Nissan's workers' compensation carrier, defendant Royal & Sun Alliance ("Royal"), hired defendant Investigations and Intelligence Services, Inc. ("Investigations") to investigate Mr. Sudberry's claim. According to the complaint, the defendants, composed of Royal Investigations, various Nissan employees, and a physician, sought to have Mr. Sudberry fired for violation of company rules while knowing there were in fact no such violations. Mr. Sudberry's employer, Nissan, is not a party to this lawsuit. Plaintiff alleges defendants conspired to have Mr. Sudberry fired "in order to retaliate against [him] for [his] having filed a workers' compensation claim and in order to allow the plaintiff to be replaced by a younger employee and/or other employees who were not as vested with employment rights as [Mr. Sudberry]."
According to plaintiff's complaint, the defendants' behavior amounts to "a tortious interference and/or an intentional interference with an employment relationship" between Mr. Sudberry and Nissan. In addition, plaintiff alleges the defendants placed him in a "false light," retaliated against him for filing a worker's compensation claim, and violated Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-50-109, which prohibits procurement of breach of contract.2
While it is not entirely clear, Mr. Sudberry appears to allege alternative theories of recovery or, at least, alternative characterizations of his employment relationship with Nissan. He alleged both: (1) that he had mere expectancy of continued employment with Nissan and, alternatively, (2) that he had a contract of continued employment with Nissan....
Sudberry I, 2006 WL 2091386 at *1-*2.
All of the Appellees filed motions to dismiss Mr. Sudberry's complaint. The Circuit Court granted Investigations & Intelligence Services' motion on April 1, 2004. On January 15, 2005, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants. In so doing, the trial court found that Mr. Sudberry was an at-will employee and that his injuries were personal so as to be subject to the one-year statute of limitations period codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §28-3-104, see also Sudberry I infra. Because Mr. Sudberry filed his complaint more than two years after the termination of his employment (at which point his cause of action accrued), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.
Mr. Sudberry appealed the dismissal of his complaint to this Court. In reaching our decision to affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand, this Court reasoned that:
Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104(a)(1) provides that actions for "injuries to the person" must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued. When the action is for "injuries to personal... property," Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-105(1) provides the period is three (3) years. The parties appear to agree that the action accrued upon Mr. Sudberry's termination. The question then is whether his action is for injury to Mr. Sudberry's property or to him personally.
In order to make this determination, we must look to the "gravamen" of the complaint.... For purposes of deciding which statute of limitation applies, the "gravamen" of the complaint is determined on the basis of the claimed damage.... Thus, although Mr. Sudberry has alleged various causes of action, that is not the determinative factor. The applicability of either statute of limitation at issue herein must be determined by the type of injury alleged because the legislature has defined the limitations period of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 28-3-104 and 105 by reference to the injury sustained.
* * *
In this case, the injury from which all other alleged damages flow is the termination of Mr. Sudberry's employment. If Mr. Sudberry had a contract for continued employment or for employment for a definite term that had not yet expired, then his injury arises by virtue of losing his contract right, which is property. If, on the other hand, Mr Sudberry did not have a contract of continued employment, then his injury does not arise from a loss of a property or contractual interest and is a personal injury.
* * *
Thus, in deciding whether Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-105 applies to a tort action where the alleged injury is loss of employment, the determinative consideration is whether the plaintiff had a contract for continued or future employment, i.e., whether the contract of employment is for a definite term or terminable at will.
We find that where the employment relationship is for a definite term, i.e. not terminable at will, then an interest in an employment contract is damaged thereby triggering the three (3) year period of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105. Otherwise, if the employment relationship is not for a definite term and/or is terminable at will then no property interest in future employment exists to be damaged thus falling under injury to the person pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104.
* * *
Since Mr. Sudberry alleged that his contract with Nissan was one for continued employment, we find, for purposes of the motion to dismiss only, that the alleged damages caused by loss of a contract and this claim is subject to the three (3) year limitations period of Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-105. Dismissal of this part of plaintiff's claim is reversed. Of course, the defendants may later attempt to establish that Mr. Sudberry had no contract for continued employment, and, if they are successful, his claims would be subject to dismissal because they were not filed within the one-year statute of limitations.
To the extent that Mr. Sudberry plead alternative claims that are based upon an employment relationship of an indefinite term or terminable at will, such claims are governed by the one (1) year period of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104. Dismissal as to those claims is affirmed.
Sudberry I, 2006 WL 2091386 at *2-*5 ().
On remand, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial