Current Pending Cases – Civil
Roger Baskin v. Pierce and Allred Construction Inc (Breach of Contract)
Style: Roger Baskin v. Pierce & Allred Construction Inc
TSC Docket Number: M2021-00144-SC-R11-CV
Court of Appeals Opinion: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/roger.baskin.opn_.pdf
Summary by the Court of Appeals:
Plaintiff Roger Baskin sued Pierce & Allred Construction, Inc. (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and breach of warranty, alleging Defendant failed to construct a house in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in accordance with the parties’ contract. Plaintiff alleged that although he “paid construction costs totaling more than $1,700,000, [Defendant] failed to complete construction of the house and has left Plaintiff with a home riddled with construction defects that affect every major system of the home.” Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2) and (3), asserting that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, and that venue was improper in Davidson County. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. We hold that Defendant’s contacts with Tennessee, including its purposeful applications for a certificate of authority to transact business and for a contractor’s license in Tennessee, are such that Defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this state. Consequently, Tennessee courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. We further find that Davidson County is a proper venue for this action, and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Issues the Court Will Consider:
1. The out-of-state Defendant intentionally directed its business activities in Tennessee. It then contracted with a Tennessee resident to engage in the same business in Alabama. Did the Court of Appeals err, in a suit over that contract, by finding personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in Tennessee and refusing to confine the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), to its precise facts?
If the Court were to accept review, the following issues would be implicated:
2. Defendant seeks this Court’s review of the Court of Appeals’ application of Crouch Railway Consulting LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460 (Tenn. 2020). But the Defendant made no reference to Crouch in its brief in the Court of Appeals. Has Defendant forfeited an argument concerning Crouch by not advancing it in the Court of Appeals as required by, inter alia, State v. Hannah, 259 S.W.3d 716 (Tenn. 2008)?
3. In the trial court, the Defendant urged the trial court to measure its contacts with Tennessee as of the filing date in September 2020. In its Application, Defendant insists they should have been measured as of January 2018. Has the Defendant forfeited this issue by failing to raise, or inviting error on it, in the trial court?
Permission to Appeal Granted: July 15, 2022
Appellants’ Briefs Filed: August 15, 2022
Appellees’ Briefs Filed: September 30, 2022
Appellants’ Reply Brief Filed: October 25, 2022
Appellees’ Reply Brief Filed:
Amicus Briefs Permitted:
Oral Argument Date: November 9, 2022
Link to Oral Argument Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1HJF0FICyw
Date of TSC Opinion:
Opinion of the TSC:
TSC Summary of the Opinion:
