election of remedies doctrine in Tennessee

2015As our Supreme Court has explained: The election of remedies doctrine has two general applications: (1) a plaintiff may be estopped from pursuing additional remedies once, a plaintiff has made a choice to pursue a specific remedy in another , forum or lawsuit, Purcell Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 631 S.W.2d 401, 409 (Tenn.App.1981); and (2) a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies “[wjhere the remedies are so inconsistent or repugnant that pursuit of one necessarily involves negation of the other.” Wimley v. Rudolph, 931 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn.1996).

1998The election of remedies doctrine has two general applications: (1) a plaintiff may be estopped from pursuing additional remedies once a plaintiff has made a choice to pursue a specific remedy in another forum or lawsuit, Purcell Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 631 S.W.2d 401,409 (Tenn.App.1981); and (2) a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies “[w]here the remedies are so inconsistent or repugnant that pursuit of one necessarily involves negation of the other.” Wimley v. Rudolph, 931 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn.1996).

2015See id. at 421 (“The purpose behind the election of remedies- doctrine is to prevent ‘double redress’ for a single wrong.”) (quoting Barger, 391 S.W.2d at 666-67 ); see also Flynn v. Shoney’s Inc., 850 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (holding that because “front pay is a substitute for reinstatement,” a plaintiff electing one “would not be entitled to both.”).

2014The election of remedies doctrine has two general applications: (1) a plaintiff may be estopped from pursuing additional 5 Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 70 provides in pertinent part: “A decree for specific performance shall, if so ordered by the court, operate as a deed to convey land located in this state, or, in appropriate cases, other property, without any conveyance being executed by the vendor.” -26- remedies once a plaintiff has made a choice to pursue a specific remedy in another forum or lawsuit, and (2) a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies “where the rem

2015In order for the election of remedies doctrine to apply, “a fact situation must contain: (a) factors making more than one remedial form available; (b) the forms must in their theory, be inconsistent .or repugnant; (c) the choice must be a wilful one, consciously made; and (d) the remedy chosen must be pursued .so as to clearly indicate an irrevocable election.” Barger v. Webb, 216 Tenn. 275 , 391 S.W.2d 664, 666 (1965); see also Petty v. Darin, 675 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).

2015In order for the election of remedies doctrine to apply, “a fact situation must contain: (a) factors making more than one remedial form available; (b) the forms must in their theory, be inconsistent .or repugnant; (c) the choice must be a wilful one, consciously made; and (d) the remedy chosen must be pursued .so as to clearly indicate an irrevocable election.” Barger v. Webb, 216 Tenn. 275 , 391 S.W.2d 664, 666 (1965); see also Petty v. Darin, 675 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).

2014“For election of remedies to apply, the two remedies sought must be truly repugnant to one another.” Allied Sound, Inc. v. Neely, 909 S.W.2d 815, 822 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2005“For election of remedies to apply, the two remedies sought must be truly repugnant to one *697 another.” Allied Sound, Inc. v. Neely, 909 S.W.2d 815, 822 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995).

2022Moreover, this Court has expressly held that the sole purpose of the election of remedies doctrine is to prevent double compensation for the same wrong: As an initial matter, although Tennessee recognizes the election of remedies doctrine, its “sole purpose is to ‘prevent double redress for a single wrong.’” Rolen v. Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 1999)).

2019As an initial matter, although Tennessee recognizes the election of remedies doctrine, its “sole purpose is to ‘prevent double redress for a single wrong.’” Rolen v. Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 1999)).

2019In Eadie, the Tennessee Supreme Court found that a plaintiff’s claim was barred by the election of remedies doctrine because the plaintiff “actively initiated proceedings seeking to obtain benefits by filing a claim in [another state], request[ed] a hearing, and participat[ed] in depositions in that matter.” Eadie, 142 S.W.3d at 291 .

2018The election of remedies doctrine is "designed to prevent forum shopping, vexatious litigation, and double recovery for the same injury." Id.

2015As our Supreme Court has explained: The election of remedies doctrine has two general applications: (1) a plaintiff may be estopped from pursuing additional remedies once, a plaintiff has made a choice to pursue a specific remedy in another , forum or lawsuit, Purcell Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 631 S.W.2d 401, 409 (Tenn.App.1981); and (2) a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies “[wjhere the remedies are so inconsistent or repugnant that pursuit of one necessarily involves negation of the other.” Wimley v. Rudolph, 931 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn.1996).

1998The election of remedies doctrine has two general applications: (1) a plaintiff may be estopped from pursuing additional remedies once a plaintiff has made a choice to pursue a specific remedy in another forum or lawsuit, Purcell Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 631 S.W.2d 401,409 (Tenn.App.1981); and (2) a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies “[w]here the remedies are so inconsistent or repugnant that pursuit of one necessarily involves negation of the other.” Wimley v. Rudolph, 931 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn.1996).

2000See Montlake Coal Co. v. Chattanooga Co., 137 Tenn. at 449-51, 193 S.W. at 1059.

1999See Montlake Coal Co. v. Chattanooga Co., 137 Tenn. 440, 444-45 , 193 S.W. 1057 , 1058 (1917); Grizzard v. Fite, 137 Tenn. 103, 108 , 191 S.W. 969 , 970 (1917), rev’d on other grounds, Barnes v. Walker, 191 Tenn. 364, 372 , 234 S.W.2d 648, 651 (1950).11 11 Notwithstanding its recognition of the idea that the doctrine of election of remedies does not apply when the chosen remedy has not been prosecuted to a final judgment, the Court held that the proper action for the plaintiff is to dismiss the claim for the inconsistent remedy rather than to amend the complaint to include the remedy that is a

1999See Montlake Coal Co. v. Chattanooga Co., 137 Tenn. 440, 444-45 , 193 S.W. 1057 , 1058 (1917); Grizzard v. Fite, 137 Tenn. 103, 108 , 191 S.W. 969 , 970 (1917), rev’d on other grounds, Barnes v. Walker, 191 Tenn. 364, 372 , 234 S.W.2d 648, 651 (1950).11 11 Notwithstanding its recognition of the idea that the doctrine of election of remedies does not apply when the chosen remedy has not been prosecuted to a final judgment, the Court held that the proper action for the plaintiff is to dismiss the claim for the inconsistent remedy rather than to amend the complaint to include the remedy that is a

1999See Montlake Coal Co. v. Chattanooga Co., 137 Tenn. 440, 444-45 , 193 S.W. 1057 , 1058 (1917); Grizzard v. Fite, 137 Tenn. 103, 108 , 191 S.W. 969 , 970 (1917), rev’d on other grounds, Barnes v. Walker, 191 Tenn. 364, 372 , 234 S.W.2d 648, 651 (1950).11 11 Notwithstanding its recognition of the idea that the doctrine of election of remedies does not apply when the chosen remedy has not been prosecuted to a final judgment, the Court held that the proper action for the plaintiff is to dismiss the claim for the inconsistent remedy rather than to amend the complaint to include the remedy that is a

2022Moreover, this Court has expressly held that the sole purpose of the election of remedies doctrine is to prevent double compensation for the same wrong: As an initial matter, although Tennessee recognizes the election of remedies doctrine, its “sole purpose is to ‘prevent double redress for a single wrong.’” Rolen v. Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 1999)).

2019As an initial matter, although Tennessee recognizes the election of remedies doctrine, its “sole purpose is to ‘prevent double redress for a single wrong.’” Rolen v. Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 1999)).

2019Id. at 508 (emphasis added).

2018The purpose of the election of remedies doctrine is “to prevent forum shopping, vexatious litigation, and double recovery for the same injury.” Id. at 506 .

1995That doctrine applies “where there are ‘two existing alternative remedial rights, inconsistent and not reconcilable with each other.’ ” Barnes v. Walker, 234 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tenn.1950) (quoting from Phillips v. Rooker, 134 Tenn. 457 , 184 S.W. 12 , 13 (1916)).

1995That doctrine applies "where there are `two existing alternative remedial rights, inconsistent and not reconcilable with each other.'" Barnes v. Walker, 234 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tenn. 1950) (quoting from Phillips v. Rooker, 134 Tenn. 457 , 184 S.W. 12 , 13 (1916)).

2025Under the election of remedies doctrine, “‘a plaintiff may be forced to elect between different remedies where the remedies are so inconsistent or repugnant that pursuit of one necessarily involves negation of the other.’” Miller v. United Automax, 166 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Forbes v. Wilson Cnty.

2017Airport Auth., 169 S.W.3d 627, 635 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Tenn. Asphalt Co. v. Purcell Enter., Inc., 631 S.W.2d 439, 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)).

2017Airport Auth., 169 S.W.3d 627, 635 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Tenn. Asphalt Co. v. Purcell Enter., Inc., 631 S.W.2d 439, 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)).

2016Although the Act operates as a waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity and provides claimants with a “deep pocket” that they would not otherwise be able to pursue, it also “imposes a strict election of remedies requirement.” Haley v. Univ. of Tenn-Knoxville, 188 S.W.3d 518, 524 (Tenn.2006).

2016As we have previously noted, because the Claims Commission Act provides claimants with a cause of action against the State, a “deep pocket” that they would not otherwise be able to pursue, “it imposes a strict election of remedies requirement.” Haley, 188 S.W.3d at 524 .

2015In order for the election of remedies doctrine to apply, “a fact situation must contain: (a) factors making more than one remedial form available; (b) the forms must in their theory, be inconsistent .or repugnant; (c) the choice must be a wilful one, consciously made; and (d) the remedy chosen must be pursued .so as to clearly indicate an irrevocable election.” Barger v. Webb, 216 Tenn. 275 , 391 S.W.2d 664, 666 (1965); see also Petty v. Darin, 675 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).

2015See id. at 421 (“The purpose behind the election of remedies- doctrine is to prevent ‘double redress’ for a single wrong.”) (quoting Barger, 391 S.W.2d at 666-67 ); see also Flynn v. Shoney’s Inc., 850 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (holding that because “front pay is a substitute for reinstatement,” a plaintiff electing one “would not be entitled to both.”).

2015See id. at 421 (“The purpose behind the election of remedies- doctrine is to prevent ‘double redress’ for a single wrong.”) (quoting Barger, 391 S.W.2d at 666-67 ); see also Flynn v. Shoney’s Inc., 850 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (holding that because “front pay is a substitute for reinstatement,” a plaintiff electing one “would not be entitled to both.”).

2007STI's Reply Brief states, "the issue before this Court is whether § 50-6-108 of the Act precludes this action as to [STI], not whether the common law doctrine of election of remedies does so." This Brief further states, "because § 50-6-108 of the Act plainly prohibits this tort action as to [STI], there is no need for [STI] to rely upon the common law doctrine of election of remedies for the relief it seeks, and . . . it does not do so in either its opening brief or this brief." [2] "`Arising out of refers to the origin of the incident in terms of causation." Phillips v. A & H Const. Co., Inc.

2007STI's Reply Brief states, "the issue before this Court is whether § 50-6-108 of the Act precludes this action as to [STI], not whether the common law doctrine of election of remedies does so." This Brief further states, "because § 50-6-108 of the Act plainly prohibits this tort action as to [STI], there is no need for [STI] to rely upon the common law doctrine of election of remedies for the relief it seeks, and . . . it does not do so in either its opening brief or this brief." [2] "`Arising out of refers to the origin of the incident in terms of causation." Phillips v. A & H Const. Co., Inc.

1999See Lorentz, 834 S.W.2d at 320 ; Paty, 756 S.W.2d at 699 . 8 *908 When a plaintiff is entitled to both punitive damages in conjunction with a common law claim for relief and to treble damages under a statutory scheme, the majority of jurisdictions employ a version of the election of remedies doctrine to prevent double recovery of enhanced damages.

1996In fact, we particularly emphasize that in our decisions we have never held the aetual receipt of benefits as a prerequisite to preclusion where an employee has affirmatively acted to obtain out-of-state benefits. 4 See Gray, 834 S.W.2d at 282 ; 5 Hale v. Fraley’s Inc., 825 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tenn.1992); Perkins, 802 S.W.2d at 217 ; True, 584 S.W.2d at 797 ; Thomas, 532 S.W.2d at 267 .