gravamen claim in Tennessee

2026To determine the gravamen of a claim, a court "must first consider the legal basis of the claim and then consider the type of injuries for which damages are sought." Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enters., LP, 456 S.W.3d 140, 151 (Tenn. 2015) (citation omitted).

2025The analysis followed by courts when ascertaining the gravamen of a claim “is not dependent upon the ‘designation’ or ‘form’ litigants ascribe to an action.” Benz-Elliott, 456 S.W.3d at 148 (quoting Redwing, 363 S.W.3d at 457 ).

2026This Court previously held that the gravamen analysis requires consideration of (1) “the legal basis of the claim” and (2) “the type of injuries for which damages are sought.” Id. at 151-52 (citation omitted) (noting that ascertaining the gravamen is a fact-intensive inquiry); see also McFarland v. Pemberton, 530 S.W.3d 76 , 109-10 (Tenn. 2017).

2018“To determine the gravamen of a claim . . . ‘a court must first consider the legal basis of the claim and then consider the type of injuries for which damages are sought.’” Id. (quoting Benz-Elliot v. Barrett Enters., L.P., 456 S.W.3d 140, 151 (Tenn. 2015)).

2024Thus, “even where a complaint couches the claims contained therein as negligent training and supervision claims, if the gravamen of the claim involves a violation of civil rights, then immunity is preserved.” Merolla v. Wilson County, No. M2018-00919- COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 1934829 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2019) (citing Cochran, 586 S.W.3d at 919); see also Jackson, 2011 WL 1049804 , at *6 (noting that the term “civil rights” in section 29-20-205(2) has been construed “as including claims arising under the federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution” (citation omitted)).

2021ANALYSIS When “determining whether a governmental entity retains immunity under the GTLA,” our courts “look to the gravamen of the claim . . . rather than the characterization of the claim by the plaintiff.” Cochran, 586 S.W.3d 909 , 918 (citations omitted).

2019See generally Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, LP, 456 S.W.3d 140, 147 (Tenn. 2015) (quoting Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tenn. 2006)) (“It is oft-recited law in this State that to determine the governing statute of limitations, a court must ascertain the ‘gravamen of the complaint.’”).

2019See Justice v. Anderson Cty., 955 S.W.2d 613, 615 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim on the basis of immunity after determining that the gravamen of the claim sounded in intentional misrepresentation, rather than in contract as characterized by - 10 - the plaintiff).

2017See, e.g., Dehojf v. Attorney Gen., 564 S.W.2d 361, 363-64 (Tenn. 1978) (determining that an action for declaratory judgment was untimely because in substance it was actually an election contest); Vance v. Schulder, 547 S.W.2d 927 ,'931 (Tenn. 1977) (“At various stages of this litigation, the parties have relied upon each of five (5) possible statutes of limitations....

2017See, e.g., Dehoff v. Attorney Gen., 564 S.W.2d 361, 363-64 (Tenn. 1978) (determining that an action for declaratory judgment was untimely because in substance it was actually an election contest); Vance v. Schulder, 547 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Tenn. 1977) (“At various stages of this litigation, the parties have relied upon each of five (5) possible statutes of limitations . . . .

2017See, e.g., Dehojf v. Attorney Gen., 564 S.W.2d 361, 363-64 (Tenn. 1978) (determining that an action for declaratory judgment was untimely because in substance it was actually an election contest); Vance v. Schulder, 547 S.W.2d 927 ,'931 (Tenn. 1977) (“At various stages of this litigation, the parties have relied upon each of five (5) possible statutes of limitations....

2017See, e.g., Dehoff v. Attorney Gen., 564 S.W.2d 361, 363-64 (Tenn. 1978) (determining that an action for declaratory judgment was untimely because in substance it was actually an election contest); Vance v. Schulder, 547 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Tenn. 1977) (“At various stages of this litigation, the parties have relied upon each of five (5) possible statutes of limitations . . . .

2017See Mosely v. State, 475 S.W.3d 767, 772-73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming the dismissal of a claim for negligent control of persons when the allegations were clearly predicated upon the State’s failure to ensure compliance with a statutory provision that did not confer a private right of action).

2015Although the Commission found that the gravamen of his claim pertained to the negligent deprivation of statutory rights, Mr. Mosley points out that “[n]o provision of section 9-8-307(a)(1) specifically defines under what circumstances the state may be held liable for injuries resulting from the ‘[negligent care, custody, and control of persons.’” See Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785, 792 (Tenn.2000).

2015See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Wood, 870 F.Supp. 797, 807 (W.D.Tenn. 1994) (explaining that, when determining the gravamen of a claim, Tennessee law requires courts to consider the cause of the injury, and holding that some claims were governed by the three-year statute of limitations while others were governed by the six-year statute of limitations).

2010Dist., 739 F. Supp. 361, 370 (W.D.

1998In other words, the "statute of limitations is determined by the subject matter of the controversy rather than the remedial procedure employed." Taylor v. Trans Aero Corp., 924 S.W.2d 109, 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (while plaintiff's claim for recovery of property damage to an airplane was barred under section 28-3-105 because the gravamen of this claim was property damage, the same plaintiff was allowed a trial on its claim for damages based on the defendants' breach of the contractual promise to insure the aircraft because the gravamen of that claim is breach of contract which has a longer s