WPCP  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\8f8 1m : 0cy: 0@: D3;w@O; 0J; 0T; 0^-< 0h< 0r< 0|e= 0= 0g> 1u> 0dl?U6?B)@DC/@ AMr@U*@@Bv~BvXD 0w+J 0J 0,K 0K 0L 0GM 0"N AOO`O 0D&P D/jP BPV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dD{9&$(G.2$ FT!   eXX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONFERRARISTROUTMANHalliburtonEdgemon OrrMcGrath TCF SavN.W.2d App JNOVWeissmanMinn.AppNtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s$2,  0  .3  0  ("$    GGGG'dxd DDeUDӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  VYZ[\]^_ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 diiii7Border 1ddOjC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#h  ll   YYY FILEDl January28,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.lAppellateCourtClerk  F!#d#h  I$h         Footnotesareomitted.PtPtPHH(FP(PHH(d'd"r\Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   eskto Geneva  eskto Geneva (O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#OC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . h    ћ7: XXdXXd7\RA'\ `    , 5  i u` ќRkmjA1-j| `@R̛0    INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS ATKNOXVILLEW.D.BUTLERandJ.A.@ @ ) KNOXCOUNTY_HALLIBURTON_@ ) 03A019804CV00146@ ) PlaintiffsAppellants   @ )  ̀ @ ) @ )  v.@ )0 HON.HAROLD_WIMBERLY_,̀@ ) JUDGE @ ) DIVERSIFIEDENERGY,INC.,@ ) APPOLOFUELS,INC.,andRANDY@ ) C._EDGEMON_@ ) @ ) DefendantsAppellees@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDGARRYFERRARISOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTSFRANCISL.LLOYD,JR.,OFKNOXVILLEFORDIVERSIFIEDENERGY,INC.,andRANDYC.EDGEMONANDREWCRAIGTROUTMANOFKNOXVILLEFORAPOLLOFUELS,INC.@ OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThisisasuitbyW.D.ButlerandJ.A.Halliburton,employeesofNorfolkSouthernCorporationagainstDiversifiedEnergy/AppoloFuels,Inc.,andRandyC.Edgemon,PresidentofDiversifiedEnergy,seekingdamagesfordefamation.  TheTrialCourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentagainstthePlaintiffs,resultinginthisappeal,whereintheyraisethefollowingissues:    I. IsthereagenuineissueofmaterialfactwhetherDefendantsletterwascapableofbeingunderstoodasdefamatory?II. IsthereagenuineissueofmaterialfactwhetherDefendantpublishedtheJune2,1995letter?III.DidthetrialcourterrinfailingtodenyDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentforDefendantsnoncompliancewithTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.03?      ThefollowingpassagestakenfromthePlaintiffsbriefaccuratelystatethefactsnecessaryfordispositionofthisappeal:    @ STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS PlaintiffsButlerandHalliburtonhaveworkedforNorfolkSouthernCorporation( NorfolkSouthern)since1972and1964,respectively.InJune1995,Mr.ButlerwasanengineerandMr.Halliburtonatrainman.ForapproximatelysixmonthspriortoJune1995,Mr.ButlerandMr.Halliburtonworkedonthesamecrew.ThecrewworkedtheMiddlesborominerunwhichincludedDefendantAppoloFuels,acustomerofNorfolkSouthern. AppoloFuelsisaminingcompany.IthasacloserelationshipwithDefendantDiversifiedEnergy,Inc.whohandlesAppoloFuelssales.DefendantRandyC.EdgemonisPresidentofDiversifiedEnergy. OnJune1.1995,DefendantEdgemontalkedtoPaulGibsonatNorfolkSouthern,allegingthatMr.ButlerandMr.Halliburtonweredeliberatelydelayingthetrains.DefendantEdgemonwrotealettertoNorfolkSouthernsuperintendentPaulGibsononJune2,1995,thatisthebasisforPlaintiffscomplaint.Theletterreadsasfollows:    DearMr.Gibson:WeatDiversifiedEnergy/AppoloFuelsareexperiencingdisruptiveproblemsoutoftwoNorfolkSoutherncrewemployees.TheemployeesareaMr.WayneButlerandJayHalliburton.WearerequestingthatthetwonamedemployeesbekeptfromcomingontoAppoloFuelsproperty.Sincerely,DIVERSIFIEDENERGY,INC.RandyC.EdgemonPresident      Notwithstandingthefactthatthiscasewasresolvedbysummaryjudgment,apreliminarydeterminationofwhethertheletteriscapableofbeingunderstoodasdefamatoryisaquestionoflawtobedeterminedbythecourt.MemphisPublishingCo.v.Nichols,569S.W.2d412(Tenn.1978).  InStonesRiverMotors,Inc.,v.MidSouthPublishingCo.,651S.W.2d713(Tenn.App.1983),thisCourtstatedthefollowing(atpage719):     Foracommunicationtobelibelous,itmustconstituteaseriousthreattotheplaintiffsreputation.Alibeldoesnotoccursimplybecausethesubjectofapublicationfindsthepublicationannoying,offensiveorembarrassing.Thewordsmustreasonablybeconstruableasholdingtheplaintiffuptopublichatred,contemptorridicule.Theymustcarrywiththemanelement ofdisgrace.W.Prosser,LawofTorts,111,p.739(4thEd.1971).      TheDefendantshavecitedthecaseofMoorev.Dreger,576S.W.2d759(Tenn.1979),whichwebelieveisdispositiveofthisappeal.Theopinion,whichwequoteinitsentirety,isshortandsuccinct,asisthewontofJusticeHenry,itsauthor.    @ OPINIONHENRY,ChiefJustice. RespondentsDregerandKonvalinka,twowaitressesemployedbypetitionerKentuckyRibEye,broughtthisactionforslanderperse,alleginginjurytotheiroccupationalreputation.Accordingtothecomplaint,respondentMoore,whomanagedtherestaurant,statedinthepresenceofcustomers:    Youallarenolongeremployedherebecauseofgivingbadservice.Ihadtopayforthreemealsforyou[Dreger]andthreemealsforyou[Konvalinka]becauseofthebadserviceyouallgave.     ThetrialcourtgrantedpetitionersmotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimunderTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6).TheCourtofAppealsreversedandremandedfortrial,rulingthatajuryquestionhadbeenraised.Wegrantedcertioraritoconsiderwhetherthestatementisactionableunderthecircumstances.Uponconsideration,weholdthatitisnot.̀FONES,COOPER,BROCKandHARBISON,JJ.,concur.      Moreover,inStonesRiver,JudgeConnerlistsanumberofcasesincludingthosefromTennessee,sisterstates,andfederalcourtsholdingthatvariouscharacterizationsoftheplaintiffswerenotactionable(651S.W.2datpage722):    Orrv.ArgusPressCo.,586F.2d1108(6thCir.1978)(useoftheword swindletocharacterizetheplaintiffsviolationofMichigansBlueSkylaw,while illchosenheldnotactionable);Framv.YellowCabCo.ofPittsburgh,380F.Supp.1314,1329(W.D.Pa.1974)(statementthattheplaintiffspreviousstatementsreflect thesortofparanoidthinkingthatyougetfromaschizophrenicheldnotactionable,becauseitwouldbeunderstoodasmere rhetoricalhyperbole);Reouxv.GlennFallsPostCo.,18Misc.2d1097,190N.Y.S.2d598,60001(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1959)(statementthatplaintiffsrefusaltotellacourtthewhereaboutsofcertainmoneywas contumaciousconductwasnotactionable,becauseitsimplyexpressedanopinionthattheplaintiffwas stubbornorcontraryorobstinateordisobedient);Schyv.HearstPub.Co.,205F.2d750(7thCir.1953)(chargingtheplaintiffswith gestapoliketacticsnotactionable,becauseitwasmerely asomewhatrhetoricalwayofsayingthattheirconductwasdictatorial);Bleeckerv.Drury,149F.2d770(2ndCir.1945)(statementthatalawyerhadcommitted afrauduponthecourtwasmerelya bombasticcharacterizationoftheplaintiffsmaneuversinrepresentinghisclient,andwasnotactionableaslibel);Williamsv.RutherfordFreightLines,Inc.,10N.C.App.384,179S.W.2d319,323(1971)(statementinthecourseofalabordisputethattheplaintiffswere gangstersis nothingmorethanvituperationornamecallingandisnotactionable);Heftv.Burk,302So.2d59,60(La.App.1974)(statemenntthattheplaintiffwas piratingemployeesawayfromthedefendantandthathisactionswere totallyunethicalmerelyexpressedthedefendantsstrongopinionconcerningtheplaintiffsattemptstohireemployeesawayfromhim,andwerenotactionable);Brownv.Newman,224Tenn.297,454S.W.2d120(1970)(statement havetheskidsbeengreasedatcitycouncil?notactionable).      Finallyastothefirstissue,wefindacasefromMinnesota,McGrathv.TCFBankSav.,502N.W.2d801,(Minn.App.1993),inwhichthelanguageusedisstrikinglysimilartothecaseatbar.Inthatcasetheworddescribingtheplaintiffwas troublemaker.Inholdingtheuseofthatwordwasnotactionable,theCourtofAppealsofMinnesota,statedthefollowing(atpage808): n       McGratharguesthetrialcourterredingrantingJNOVonhisdefamationclaim.Wedisagree.Theoralstatementsatissuefallintothreecategories:(1)threatsthatMcGrathwouldbeblackballedatotherbanks;(2)statementsbetweenmanagersaboutMcGrath;and(3)amanagersstatementtoemployeesaboutMcGrath.Essentially,allthemanagersstatementsinvolvethephrase troublemaker.Thetrialcourtfoundthephrase troublemakerwasnotactionablebecause:    Unliketheaccusationthatapersonis dishonest,whichsuggestsspecificactswhichsocietyhasdeterminedtobeimproper,makingtroubleisgenerallyintheeyeofthebeholder,andforthatreasoncannotbeproventrueorfalse.     Thetrialcourtproperlydeterminedthephrase troublemakerwasnotactionableundereitherconstitutionalorcommonlawstandards.Theterm troublemakerlacksprecisionandspecificity.ThisphrasealsofailstosuggestverifiablefalsefactsaboutMcGrath.Finally,theambiguityoftheterm troublemakerpreventsanyunderlyingfactsfrombeinginferredfromthisphrase.Accordingly,thephrase troublemakerisnotactionablebecauseitisconstitutionallyprotected. Further,thestatementslackofprecision,specificity,andverifiabilitypreventstheinferencethatMcGrathcommittedspecificactsthatsocietyfindsreprehensible.Thus,inthiscase,thephrase troublemakerisnotdefamatoryunderthecommonlaw.SeeWeissmanv.SriLankaCurryHouse,Inc.,469N.W.2d471,473(Minn.App.1991)(undercommonlaw,adjectivesuchas dishonestwasdefamatorybecauseitimpliedthecommissionofspecificactorconductsocietyfoundreprehensible).      Inlightofourdispositionofissueone,itisunnecessarythatweaddressissuetwo.  Astoissuethree,weagreewithcounselfortheDefendantsthattheprovisionofRule56.03oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,directingasimpleconcisestatementofthematerialfactstoaccompanyanymotionforsummaryjudgment,isforthebenefitofthetrialcourt,andcouldbe,asitwasinthiscase,waived.Moreover,evenifweweretofindthatthisissuehasmerit,itwouldrequireremandtotheTrialCourtwhereanothermotionforsummaryjudgmentcouldbemade,meetingtheomittedrequirementofRule56.03.Evenifasecondmotionforsummaryjudgmentisnotfiledandthefactsremainasarecontainedinthepresentrecord,amotionforadirectedverdictwouldbesustainedattheconclusionofthePlaintiffsproof.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstthePlaintiffsandtheirsurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.