ÿWPCM …# V %ab g 0(sU:›w@Õ4 ) 8 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1u¨ U, 0dI U,­ U*Ù B)DC, AMo ¼ BÇv~ävÓb D35 0@h AO¨Æ÷ 0D½ D/ B0˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X- ù -($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ‚ƒD„…Ó€†‡ˆ‰Ó€“Gav 3|x“2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌMay€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ДXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑDEWEY€RICHARD€FARLEY€and€wife,à à)ÌPAMELA€FARLEY,€andà àà àà à)ÌTOMMY€WEST,à àà àà àà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœPlaintiffs/Appellants,›à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ01„A„01„9510„CV„00429›ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœPutnam€Circuit›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœNo.€J„5507€and€J„5511›ÌœJAMES€CLAYTON,€Individually€andà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|³J` ç `€€Lßd/b/a€LUV€HOMES,€CLAYTON€à àà à)ÌHOMES,€INC.,€Individually€and€d/b/a€à à)ÌLUV€HOMES,€and€CH€OF€AL,€INC.,€à à)ÌIndividually€and€d/b/a€LUV€HOMES,€à à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendants/Appellees.›à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€œCIRCUIT€COURT›€OF€œPUTNAM€COUNTY›ÌœAT€COOKEVILLE,€TENNESSEE›ÌÌTHE€œHONORABLE€JOHN€TURNBULL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌDAVID€DAYÌROBERT€DURHAMÌ19€South€Jefferson€AvenueÌCookeville,€Tennessee€38501Ìà àAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants€Dewey€Richard€Farley€and€PamelaÏFarleyÌÌMARTELIA€T.€CRAWFORDÌ310A€East€Broad€StreetÌCookeville,€Tennessee€38501Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellant€Tommy€WestÌÌTOM€CORTSÌThird€Floor,€Noel€PlaceÌ200€Fourth€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„8985Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED›Ì̛̜à àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌœTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌLEWIS,€J.›ÌÇÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€ „ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€ XÔÌÌà àà àThis€is€an€action€for€misrepresentations€and€inducement€of€breach€ofÏcontract€relating€to€the€trial€and€settlement€of€a€personal€injury€case.€€The€originalÏplaintiffs€and€a€co„defendant€have€sued€the€other€defendants€for€misrepresentingÏor€concealing€material€facts€which€(1)€induced€the€plaintiffs€to€settle€their€originalÏclaim€for€less€than€its€worth,€and€(2)€induced€the€defendantsðð€insurance€companyÏnot€to€represent€the€other€defendant.€€The€Circuit€Court€of€œPutnam›€County€grantedÏsummary€judgment€to€the€defendants.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€the€summer€of€1990€an€entity€known€as€œLuv›€Homes€operated€aÏmobile€home€sales€lot€in€œCookeville›.€€œTommy›€West€managed€the€œCookeville›Ïœoperation.€€On›€August€27,€1990,€Dewey€R.€Farley,€who€worked€for€a€contractorÏhired€by€œLuv›€Homes€to€deliver€one€of€the€trailers,€was€helping€move€the€furnitureÏout€of€the€unit.€€Cheryl€West,€Tommy€Westððs€wife,€was€œhauling€the€furniture€in€herÏEl›€Camino€œwhich€she€owned›€jointly€with€Tommy€œWest.€›€Mr.€Farley€was€standing€inÏthe€bed€of€the€vehicle€holding€some€of€the€furniture€œupright€when›€œthe›€truck€lurchedÏœforward,›€throwing€Mr.€Farley€out€and€onto€the€ground.€€He€suffered€severe€andÏpermanent€injuries.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Farley€and€his€wife€sued€Tommy€and€Cheryl€West,€œLuv›€Homes,Ïand€the€alleged€owners€of€œLuv›€Homes,€including€James€Clayton€individually.€€TheÏinsurance€company€providing€coverage€for€œLuv›€Homes€and€its€associatedÏœentities,€but›€did€not€provide€coverage€for€Tommy€West.€€Mr.€West,€after€retainingÏhis€own€private€attorney,€left€town€and€broke€off€communication€with€his€attorneyÏand€the€other€defendants.€€Consequently,€the€plaintiffs€took€a€default€judgmentÏagainst€him.€€After€the€trial€started€in€November€of€1991,€the€œLuv›€Homes/ClaytonÏdefendants€settled€their€case€with€the€œFarleys›€for€$125,000.€€The€jury€returned€aÏverdict€against€the€œWests›€for€$620,000.ÌÌà àà àMr.€West€resurfaced,€and€in€1993€he€and€the€œFarleys›€sued€the€œLuv›ÏHomes/Clayton€insurance€carrier€for€failing€to€defend€Mr.€West€in€the€originalÏaction.€€In€September€of€1994,€all€the€parties€œto€that€action€compromised›€theirÏclaims€œand€the›€insurance€carrier€paid€the€œFarleys›€$298,502.63€in€return€for€theirÏrelease€of€all€claims€against€the€insurance€company.€€Tommy€West€released€hisÏclaims€against€the€insurance€company€and€the€œFarleys›€released€Tommy€WestÏfrom€any€further€liability€arising€out€of€the€1990€accident.ÌÌà àà àOn€November€4,€1994€the€œFarleys›€and€Mr.€West€œin€separate€actionsÏsued›€the€œLuv›€Homes/Clayton€œdefendants,›€alleging€that€they€misrepresented€orÏsuppressed€facts€during€the€earlier€litigation€that€caused€the€œFarleys›€to€settle€theirÍcase€against€the€defendants€for€less€that€its€worth€and€caused€the€defendantsððÏinsurance€company€to€breach€its€obligation€to€defend€Mr.€West.€€The€complaintÏspecifically€charged€that€the€defendants€negligently€or€intentionally€(1)Ïmisrepresented€or€withheld€the€facts€pertaining€to€Cheryl€Westððs€employment€withÏthe€defendants,€(2)€misrepresented€the€facts€concerning€the€lease€of€the€ElÏCamino€by€the€defendants,€(3)€misrepresented€facts€concerning€Cheryl€WestððsÏintoxication€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€and€(4)€misrepresented€or€suppressed€theÏfact€that€Tommy€West€admitted€he€and€Cheryl€West€were€negligent€in€causing€theÏaccident.ÌÌà àà àœThe€defendants€answered€each€complaint.€€They€did€not€plead€resÏjudicata€but€did€plead€the€releases€entered€in€the€prior€actions€as€affirmativeÏdefenses.€€Subsequently,€the€defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment€andÏraised€the€additional€defense€of€witness€immunity.€€The€plaintiffs€joined€issue€onÏthe€defenses€raised€in€the€motion.€€The›€trial€judge€œgranted›€summary€judgment€toÏall€defendants.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌà@ àò òTommy€Westó óÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€in€Tommy€Westððs€case€œbecause›€œhe€hadÏspecific€knowledge€concerning€the€truth€of€all›€of€the€facts€allegedlyÍmisrepresented€or€œsuppressed,€and€by€obtaining€a€judgment€to€enforce€theÏinsurance€contract,€he€has€obtained€all€the€relief€to€which€he€is€entitled.›ÌœÌ›à àà àœAn›€essential€requirement€of€any€action€for€fraud,€deceit,€failure€toÏdisclose€or€negligent€or€innocent€misrepresentations€is€detrimental€reliance€on€œa›Ïœfalse€premise.›€€See€òòœShwab›€v.€Waltersóó,€147€Tenn.€638,€251€œS.W.›€œ42›€(1922);ÏòòœTartera›€v.€œPalumbo›óó,€224€Tenn.€262,€453€S.W.2d€780€(1970);€òòWilliams€v.€VanÏœHersh›óó,€578€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€App.€1978);€òòDozier€v.€Hawthorne€DevelopmentÏCo.óó,€37€Tenn.€App.€279,€262€S.W.2d€705€œ(1953).›€€ð ðFraud€involves€deception€and€ifÏone€knows€the€truth,€and€is€not€deceived,€he€is€not€defrauded.ðð€€òòFreeman€v.ÏCitizens€National€Bankóó,€167€Tenn.€œ399€at€409,›€70€S.W.2d€25€at€29€(1934).ÌÌà àà àMr.€West€was€the€agent€of€the€Clayton€defendants.€€He€ran€theÏoperation€in€œCookeville›€and€was€the€person€through€whom€the€ClaytonÏdefendants€were€charged€with€knowledge€that€Cheryl€West€was€drunk,€that€sheÏwas€an€employee€Ìœof€Luv€Homes,€or€that›€the€El€Camino€was€leased€to€the€Clayton€defendants.€€HeÏwas€surely€the€best€witness€to€the€fact€that€he€had€admitted€liability.€€œSince€Mr.›ÏWest€œwas€not€deceived€by€any€of€the€defendants,€he€cannot›€sue€œthem›€for€fraudÏand€deceit.ÌÌà àà àœWe›€are€œalso€convinced›€that€he€cannot€now€sue€the€other€defendantsÏfor€inducing€the€insurance€company€to€deny€coverage€in€the€original€action€by€theÏœFarleys›.€€The€undisputed€facts€show€that€Mr.€West€œjoined›€the€œFarleys›€in€an€actionÏto€enforce€the€insurance€contract.€€That€action€ended€in€an€agreed€judgment€forÏthe€œFarleys›€and€a€complete€release€of€any€liability€on€the€part€of€Mr.€West.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€a€party€to€a€contract€may€œsuccessfully€prosecute›€an€actionÏto€enforce€œit›€and€still€maintain€an€action€against€third€parties€for€inducing€œthe›Ïbreach,€the€law€permits€only€one€recovery,€and€any€payments€made€by€the€oneÏwho€breached€the€contract€must€be€credited€to€the€one€who€induced€the€breach.€ÏòòœTSC›€Industries,€Inc.€œv.›€œTomlin›óó,€743€S.W.2d€169€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€In€this€case,ÏMr.€West€does€not€allege€œhow›€he€has€suffered€any€damages€beyond€the€judgmentÏawarded€to€the€œFarleys›€in€the€original€action.€€That€judgment€has€now€beenÏcompletely€discharged€and€Mr.€West€has€obtained€a€release€from€all€liability.€ÏTherefore,€the€undisputed€facts€show€that€an€essential€element€of€œhis›€cause€ofÏaction€is€missing€from€this€case.€€See€òòHart€v.€First€National€Bank€of€Memphisóó,€690ÏS.W.2d€536€(Tenn.€App.€œ1985).›ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àò òThe€œFarleys›ó óÌÌà àà àThe€œFarleys›€allege€that€because€the€Clayton€defendantsÏmisrepresented€or€suppressed€certain€material€facts€in€the€original€litigation,€theyÏ(the€œFarleys›)€were€induced€to€settle€their€claims€for€far€less€than€their€actual€worth.€ÏThe€defendants€€œrely›€on€the€release€signed€by€the€œFarleys›€in€the€original€actionÏand€œargue€in€the€alternative›€that€any€separate€cause€of€action€was€barred€by€theÏœwitness›€immunity€doctrine.ÌÌœÌÌ›à@ àò òa.€€The€Releaseó óÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€language€releasing€the€Clayton€defendants€from€allÏliability€arising€out€of€the€accident€on€August€27,€1990,€the€release€contained€theÏfollowing:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àœReleasors›€elect€to€and€do€assume€all€risks€forÏclaims€heretofore€or€hereafter€arising,€known€orÏunknown,€asserted€against€œReleasees›€in€the€above„described€litigation€and€œReleasors›€expressly€includeÏwithin€the€scope€of€this€Release€all€such€claims.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àœReleasors›€warrant€that€no€promise€orÏinducement€has€been€offered€or€made€except€asÏherein€set€forth;€that€this€Release€is€executed€withoutÏreliance€on€any€statement€or€representation€byÏœReleasees›€or€by€any€agents€or€representatives€ofÏœReleasees›,€and€œReleasors›€hereby€acknowledge€andÍassume€all€risk,€chance,€or€hazard€that€their€injuries€orÏdamages€may€be€or€become€permanent,€progressive,Ïgreater,€or€more€extensive€than€is€now€known€orÏanticipated.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€only€reference€to€the€release€in€the€œFarleys›ðð€initial€brief€is€œaÏstatement€that›€the€release€is€ð ðineffective€in€the€face€of€œmisrepresentation.ð𛀜We€takeÏthat€as€a€statement€of€the€familiar€rule€that€a€release€may€be€set€aside€if€it€wasÏprocured€by€fraudulent€misrepresentations.›€œ€›€òòœBrundige›€v.€Railroadóó,€112€Tenn.€526,Ïœ81›€œS.W.€1248›€œ(1903);€òòCrigger›€v.€Mutual€Benefit€Health€&€œAccident›€Associationóó,€17ÏTenn.€App.€636,€69€S.W.2d€907€œ(1933).›€€The€misrepresentations€must€relate€toÏmaterial€facts,€òòChattanooga€œRy›€&€Light€Co.€V.€Glazeóó,€146€Tenn.€49,€œ239›€œS.W.›€œ394›Ï(1921),€and€reliance€on€the€misrepresentations€must€be€justified.€€òòEvans€v.€œTillett›ÏBros.€Const.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€545€S.W.2d€8€(Tenn.€App.€1976).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€the€alleged€misrepresentations€relate€to€the€very€issuesÏthat€were€being€tried€in€the€original€œaction.€›€We€think,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€aÏrelease€executed€under€such€circumstances€cannot€be€set€aside€for€fraud.€ÏœParties€to€a€lawsuit€cannot€justifiably€rely€on€the€representations€of€the€adverseÏparties€when€success€on€the€merits€requires€proof€that€the€representations€wereÏfalse.€€For€the€same€reasons€that€a€judgment€may€not€be€set€aside€because€of€theÏð ðfalsity€of€the€internal€evidence€on€which€it€was€procured,ðð€see€òòThomas€v.ÏDockeryóó,€33€Tenn.€App.€695€at€703,€232€S.W.2d€594€at€598€(1950),€a€releaseÍprocured€by€that€same€internal€evidence€should€also€be€immune€from€an€attackÏbased€on€fraud.›ÌÌà@ àò òb.€€The€Separate€Action€for€Fraud€and€Deceitó óÌÌà àà àThe€œFarleys›€maintain€that€the€release€has€nothing€to€do€with€theirÏcause€of€action€for€fraud€and€deceit;€that€they€have€alleged€a€separate€and€distinctÏcause€of€action.€€But,€œeven€if›€we€view€the€matter€in€that€light,€the€sameÏconsiderations€dictate€that€the€cause€of€action€does€not€exist.€€As€a€matter€of€lawÏone€party€to€a€lawsuit€represented€by€counsel,€cannot€justifiably€rely€on€theÏœinternal€evidence€presented€by›€the€opposite€parties.ÌÌò òà@ àc.€€Witness€Immunityó óÌÌà àà àWhat€we€have€previously€said€in€this€section€of€the€opinion€is,Ïperhaps,€just€another€way€of€stating€the€witness€immunity€doctrine.€€As€we€statedÏin€òòœBuckner›€v.€Carltonóó,€623€S.W.2d€œ102€at›€œ108€(1981):›ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€general€rule€is€that€testimony€given€in€a€judicialÏproceeding,€if€pertinent€thereto,€is€protected€by€anÏabsolute€privilege€even€though€given€maliciously€andÏwith€knowledge€of€its€falsity.€€And€accordingly,€it€is€alsoÏthe€general€rule€that€no€civil€action€for€œdamages›€lies€forÍfalse€testimony€or€for€subornation€of€false€testimony€orÏfor€conspiracy€to€give€or€procure€false€testimony.ÌÌSee€31€œA.L.R.›€œ3d›,€òòFalse€Testimony„Civil€Conspiracyóó,€ðð€œ1423€at€ðð€2.›ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€œFarleys›€argue,€however,€that€the€defendantsðð€representationsÏwere€either€a€part€of€a€larger€conspiracy€or€were€made€prior€to€the€original€action.€ÏAs€to€the€larger€conspiracy€theory,€we€think€this€case€is€just€like€òòœBuckner›€v.€CarltonóóÏwhere€the€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€defendant€was€out€to€ð ðgetðð€him€and€maliciouslyÏdamage€his€reputation€in€the€community.€€Nevertheless,€we€held€that€theÏdefendant€ð ðcommitted€no€overt€acts€separate€and€apart€from€the€false€testimony,Ïthe€false€statements€to€investigators€and€the€conspiratorial€conversations€.€.€.€.ðð€Ï623€S.W.2d€at€108.€€In€this€case€all€of€the€allegations€of€misconduct€relate€to€theÏdefendantsðð€alleged€purpose€to€defeat€the€œFarleys›ðð€claims.€€Thus,€the€facts€allegedÏdo€not€bring€this€case€within€the€larger€conspiracy€exception€to€witness€immunity.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€assertion€that€at€least€some€of€the€false€statements€madeÏby€the€defendants€were€prior€to€the€original€action,€we€think€that€all€of€theÏstatements€come€within€the€privilege.€€If€they€were€not€made€in€connection€withÏthe€litigation€over€the€œFarleys›ðð€claims,€they€would€be€irrelevant.€€Otherwise,€theyÏcome€within€the€privilege.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€œto€the€Circuit€Court€of€Putnam€County€for›€any€further€proceedingsÏnecessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.ÌÌÓӜ̛à àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌœÌÌ_______________________________›ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌœ_______________________________›ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÑ X Ñœ›