ÿWPC¿ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) AQ< Æ 0DS 0@— 0D× DC D/^ B Bª D3Ç AMú U*G ýq v~n vÓì˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ž Ÿ E  ¡ D¢ D£ ^e¤ V¥ ¦ Ó€° ê‚_#3|x° 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌNovember€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\Ñœò òÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€*,%A1-j|E` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌDOUGLAS€AMES€and€wife,€à àà à)à àÌSIDNEY€STROUD€AMES,à àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óDavidson€Circuit€No.€92C„1693Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9701„CV„00043ò òÌPHILLIPS€BUILDERS,€INC.€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€BARBARA€N.€HAYNES,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellants:à àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellee:ÌóóÌD.€Russell€Thomas€€€à àà àà àà àTodd€E.€Panther€€€€ÌSonya€W.€Hendersonà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌMurfreesboro,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ŒÓXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€is€a€negligence€case,€involving€the€construction€and€repair€of€a€residential€building.€ÏThe€plaintiff€owner€of€a€condominium€alleged€that€the€builderððs€negligence€resulted€in€the€presenceÏof€a€harmful€microorganism€in€the€building.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏthe€builder.€€We€affirm.€€Ìà àOn€October€30,€1989,€the€Plaintiff/Appellants,€Sidney€and€Douglas€Ames€(the€ð ðAmesesðð),Ïpurchased€a€newly„constructed€condominium€in€Antioch,€Tennessee,€built€by€Defendant/AppelleeÏPhillips€Builders,€Inc.€(ð ðPhillipsðð).€€The€Ameses€moved€into€their€home€shortly€after€the€closing.€ÏDuring€the€winter€of€1989,€Mrs.€Ames€became€ill.€€She€felt€dizzy,€disoriented,€nauseous,Ïexperienced€blurry€vision,€sleeplessness,€numbness€and€tingling€in€her€thighs€and€legs,€andÏperiodic€memory€loss.€€Eventually,€Mrs.€Ames€was€diagnosed€as€suffering€from€hypersensitivityÏpneumonitis,€a€reaction€to€a€type€of€bacteria€called€actinomycete.€€Environmental€testing€of€theÏcondominium€revealed€actinomycetes€in€the€home,€especially€in€the€crawlspace€under€the€building.€Ïà àÌà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Ames€filed€suit€against€Phillips,€asserting€that€Phillipsðð€failure€to€constructÏthe€condominium€to€allow€for€proper€ventilation€of€the€crawlspace€area€led€to€the€buildup€of€theÏactinomycete€bacteria.€€They€sought€damages€under€several€legal€theories,€including€negligence,Ïbreach€of€implied€warranty,€and€fraudulent€misrepresentation.Ìà àMr.€and€Mrs.€Ames€asserted€that€Mrs.€Amesðð€illness€was€proximately€and€legally€causedÏby€high€levels€of€actinomycete€bacteria€in€her€condominium,€the€result€of€a€poorly€designed€crawlÏspace.€€They€alleged€that€Phillips€constructed€a€crawl€space€which€did€not€meet€Southern€BuildingÏCode€specifications,€making€Phillips€liable€under€a€theory€of€negligence€òòò òper€seó óóó.€€€They€alsoÏcontended€that,€even€if€Phillips€originally€had€no€duty€to€the€Ameses,€Phillips€voluntarilyÏundertook€a€duty€by€attempting€to€remedy€the€moisture€problem€in€the€condominium.€€The€AmesesÏalso€maintained€€that€Phillips€violated€a€common€law€implied€new€home€warranty€and€are€liable€forÏall€incidental€and€consequential€damages€resulting€from€the€breach€of€the€implied€warranty.€€ÏFinally,€the€Ameses€claimed€that€Mrs.€Ames€asked€Phillipsðð€sales€representative€if€there€had€beenÍany€moisture€problems€in€the€condominium,€and€that€the€sales€representative€replied€in€theÏnegative.€€The€Ameses€alleged€that€this€was€a€misrepresentation,€giving€rise€to€a€claim€forÏfraudulent€misrepresentation€or€inducement.€€ÌœÇ›à àThe€original€suit€against€Phillips€was€filed€on€March€21,€1991.€€After€the€initial€pleadingsÏand€limited€written€discovery,€the€Ameses€filed€a€notice€of€voluntary€non„suit,€and€refiled€theirÏcomplaint€on€July€15,€1992.€€Phillips€filed€an€answer€and€third„party€complaint€against€WellsÏFireplace€&€Supply,€Inc.€(Wells).€€The€trial€court€granted€Wellsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,Ïand€Wells€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.€€Phillips€filed€its€first€motion€for€summary€judgment€inÏNovember,€1993,€which€was€denied.€€Subsequently,€€Phillips€filed€a€second€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.Ìà àOn€Phillipsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€considered€the€affidavit€of€Mrs.ÏAmesðð€treating€physician,€Dr.€John€Strimas,€who€stated€that€Mrs.€Amesðð€physical€condition€was€aÏreaction€to€actinomycetes,€caused€by€ð ðliving€in€the€home€built€by€Phillips€Builders€that€is€inÏquestion€in€this€lawsuit.ðð€€However,€Dr.€Strimas€also€acknowledged€that€Mrs.€Ames€began€havingÏmedical€problems€before€moving€into€the€condominium.€€Ìà àThe€Ameses€also€submitted€the€testimony€of€a€mycological€expert,€Kevin€Kuehn,Ïspecializing€in€the€identification€and€quantification€of€airborne€microorganisms.€€His€testimony€isÏrelied€upon€by€both€parties.Ìà àKuehn€described€actinomycetes€as€a€bacteria.€€Their€function€is€to€degrade€plant€materialÏand€other€organic€material:ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€[I]f€you€dig€up€earth,€when€you€go€out€and€you€garden,€dig€up€earth,€thatÏearthy€smell€is€primarily€associated€with€Actinomycetes.€€That€odor,€that€particularÏodor€is€associated€with€Actinomycetes.ÌÌÓÓKuehn€acknowledged€that€ð ðfungal€particles€are€normal€components€of€both€indoor€and€outdoor€air.Ï.€.€.ðð€€However,€he€opined€that€the€Amesesðð€residence€had€ð ða€fungal€contamination€problem,ððÏbased€on€tests€performed€on€samples€from€the€Amesesðð€home.Ìà àNevertheless,€on€cross„examination,€Kuehn€admitted€that€he€did€not€know€if€the€level€ofÏactinomycetes€in€the€Amesesðð€home€was€different€from€other€homes€in€the€Nashville€area.€€HeÏtestified€regarding€the€upper€normal€limit€for€concentration€of€particles€of€actinomycetes,€andÏacknowledged€that€the€level€of€actinomycetes€in€the€Amesesðð€residence€was€ð ðwell€belowðð€that€level.ÍSamples€on€the€Amesesðð€home€were€found€to€be€below€the€normal€acceptable€limit€of€concentrationÏof€actinomycetes.Ìà àAfter€consideration€of€the€entire€record,€the€trial€court€found€no€disputed€issue€of€materialÏfact€and€granted€Phillipsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€From€this€decision,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€AmesÏnow€appeal.€€à àThe€Ameses€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Phillipsðð€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€when€there€were€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€which,€when€viewed€in€a€light€mostÏfavorable€to€them,€demonstrated€a€ò òòòprima€facieóóó ó€case€of€(1)€common€law€negligence,€(2)€violationÏof€€an€implied€new€home€warranty,€and€(3)€common€law€fraud€and/or€fraudulent€inducement,€asÏwell€as€a€claim€for€negligence€ò òòòper€seó óóó€against€Phillips.€€Phillips€also€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)Ïwhether€the€record€contains€any€disputed€material€facts€creating€a€genuine€issue€that€it€owed€theÏAmeses€a€duty;€and€(2)€whether€the€record€contains€any€disputed€material€facts€creating€a€genuineÏissue€that€it€€proximately€caused€the€Amesesðð€alleged€damages.€€€à àÌà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€when€the€movant€demonstratesÏthat€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€movant€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€In€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment,Ïthis€Court€must€review€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party€and€draw€allÏinferences€in€their€favor€without€attaching€any€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€absence€of€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€entitled€theÏmovant€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€ò òòòSee€McCall€v.€Wilderó óóó,€€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€This€Court€reviews€the€record€ò òòòde€novoó óóó,€without€attaching€any€presumption€of€correctnessÏto€the€trial€courtððs€action.€ò òòòSee€Carvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€Ameses€do€not€allege€that€Phillips€had€a€duty,€by€agreement€or€otherwise,€to€constructÏa€home€completely€free€of€actinomycetes.€€There€is€no€allegation€that€Phillips€had€been€informed,Ïor€indeed€that€the€Ameses€were€aware,€that€Mrs.€Ames€was€hypersensitive€to€actinomycetes.€ÏUnder€any€of€the€legal€theories€asserted€by€the€Ameses,€there€can€be€no€recovery€if€they€cannotÏproduce€evidence€that€the€level€of€actinomycetes€in€their€home€was€above€the€normal€or€acceptableÍlimits.€€The€plaintiffs€cannot€establish€negligence€without€proof€that€Phillips€breached€a€duty€toÏconstruct€a€home€with€normal€levels€of€actinomycetes.€€ò òòòSee€Jenkins€v.€CSX€Transportation,ÏInc.ó óóó,€906€S.W.2d€460,€463€(Tenn.€App.€1995),€citing€elements€of€a€claim€for€negligence,Ïincluding€ð ðconduct€falling€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€amounting€to€a€breach€of€.€.€.€dutyÏ.€.€.€.ðð€€Likewise,€the€Ameses€can€establish€no€breach€of€an€implied€warranty€if€they€cannot€prove€aÏlevel€of€actinomycetes€above€that€which€is€normal€or€acceptable.€€ò òòòSee€Dixon€v.€Mountain€CityÏConstruction€Co.ó óóó,€632€S.W.2d€538,€541„42€(Tenn.€1982),€describing€the€implied€warranty€asÏwarranting€that€the€residence€is€ð ðsufficiently€free€of€major€structural€defects.€.€.€.ðð€€Similarly,€theÏAmeses€cannot€recover€for€fraudulent€misrepresentation€of€they€cannot€establish€that€the€moistureÏlevel€in€the€crawlspace€resulted€in€an€unacceptable€level€of€actinomycetes€in€the€home.ò ò€€òòSeeÏHiller€v.€Haileyó óóó,€915€S.W.2d€800€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€ò òòòMetro.€Govððt€of€Nashville€v.ÏMcKinneyó óóó,€852€S.W.2d€233,€237€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€(To€sustain€a€claim€for€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation,€plaintiff€must€prove,€among€other€things,€that€her€reliance€on€theÏmisrepresentation€caused€her€injuries.).Ìà àReviewing€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€Ameses,€it€is€undisputed€that€theÏlevel€of€actinomycetes€in€the€Ameses€home€is€below€the€normal€or€acceptable€limits.€€Therefore,Ïunder€€any€of€the€legal€theories€relied€upon€by€the€Ameses,€the€trial€court€properly€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Phillips.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellants,€forÏwhich€execution€œmay›€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÌ