WPCs ul0[ `%_·~ڙӎo kSz' dR[YŔeyU3gEp'WE Tse̬EgԽrgC0l:[@†㱪iV/ƒL]Zx{ijlkY~a%!hrn_xc?>m +x: ;J(FGMLy@ cA j%xyŷtngw!~O\Bն?8lpY\}ޤk&xQ@,ONQEFL4)^ExBI"? FpWoU`pE};uq_TTs8c0Pjxi7uxBQ+Wn$[oU pg ]xt?3)0W# U N % 04! 0Ub w@ 4P d s j{ N ^  m  0DUNRUNlU: AQE 0D  0DO 0D D/ B D3############################################# BVHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  (c(2$ U!   XXX `   0  - - rDstUuDvUwDxeyzӀ_#-3|xmoore construction v. story - opinion 0 '  0 .   {$ U  ~$  XXX `   1    _TheSpecificationsandContractDocumentsstated:  8 ` TheOwnerwillrequireasminimumqualificationforBiddertohavesuccessfullycompletedwithinthelastthirtysixmonthstheinstallationofanaturalgastransmissionpipelineandregulatorstationsystemsimilarinsizeandcomplexitytothisProject.Biddermusthavepreviousexperienceinweldingonhighpressuregaslines,hydrostaticpressuretesting,andfillingofpipelineswithhighpressurenaturalgas.(#$  0    ~$  XXX `   2    _TheCityCouncilsresolutionawardingthecontracttoKingPipelinerecitedthat  8 ` TherewasextendeddiscussionregardingtheoptionofawardingthecontracttoMooreConstructionCo.,alocalcontractorandthesecondlowbidder,underthe5%provision.Mr.Storystatedthatinaccordancewiththebidspecifications,itwashisopinionthatMooreConstructionCo.wasnotqualifiedbecausethiscompanyhadnotcompletedaprojectofthismagnitudewithinthepast36monthsasspecifiedinthebiddocuments.  ~$  XXX `   1    _TheSpecificationsandContractDocumentsstated:  8 ` TheOwnerwillrequireasminimumqualificationforBiddertohavesuccessfullycompletedwithinthelastthirtysixmonthstheinstallationofanaturalgastransmissionpipelineandregulatorstationsystemsimilarinsizeandcomplexitytothisProject.Biddermusthavepreviousexperienceinweldingonhighpressuregaslines,hydrostaticpressuretesting,andfillingofpipelineswithhighpressurenaturalgas.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  ~$  XXX `   2    _TheCityCouncilsresolutionawardingthecontracttoKingPipelinerecitedthat  8 ` TherewasextendeddiscussionregardingtheoptionofawardingthecontracttoMooreConstructionCo.,alocalcontractorandthesecondlowbidder,underthe5%provision.Mr.Storystatedthatinaccordancewiththebidspecifications,itwashisopinionthatMooreConstructionCo.wasnotqualifiedbecausethiscompanyhadnotcompletedaprojectofthismagnitudewithinthepast36monthsasspecifiedinthebiddocuments.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ""  vý v   Ad FILEDXs) X ý  July10,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,@AZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP PdVVVV'dxd d U!   xxxx_XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7dd7    ќm zzr )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rzz@ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt )>.*jx` `@Es ` 8ttxPV tߛ@)DATNASHVILLE  8 mMOORECONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY, p )   INC.,andPAULW.MOORE,     p )    `     h      p ) ` Plaintiffs/Appellants,     p )   $   `     h      p )  MontgomeryCircuit :   `     h      p )  No.C931 P  VS. `     h      p ) f   `     h      p ) `     h      p )  AppealNo. B STORYENGINEERINGCOMPANY, p )  01A019606CV00267 X INC.,andRODDYL.STORY,     p ) n  `     h      p ) ` Defendants/Appellees.     p )  @!DAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURT@%DFORMONTGOMERYCOUNTY@#DATCLARKSVILLE,TENNESSEE@ DTHEHONORABLEJAMESE.WALTON,JUDGEForPlaintiffs/Appellants:     p   ForDefendants/Appellees: )%! ThomasN._Bateman_ h      p   JohnT.Horton +J'# RobertT._Bateman_ h      p   Brewer,Krause,Brooks&Mills -`($ _Bateman_,_Bateman_Ԁ&_Darnell_     p   Nashville,Tennessee &.v)% Clarksville,Tennesseem @%DAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED mԈ 5B1+  `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  <81 m xxxx@)DOPINION   m ` ThisappealstemsfromaconstructioncontracttoimprovethenaturalgastransmissionsystemintheCityofClarksville.AfterthexxCityawardedxxthexxcontract,xxanunsuccessfulbidderxxsuedtheprojectengineerinthexxCircuitCourtforMontgomeryxxCounty,claiminginterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage,defamation,anddisparagement.Thetrialcourtgrantedtheprojectengineersmotionforsummaryjudgment,andtheunsuccessfulbidderhasappealedtothiscourt.WehavedeterminedthatthesummaryjudgmentwasappropriatebecauseTennesseedoesnotrecognizethetortofinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantageandbecausetheprojectengineersstatementsconcerningtheunsuccessfulbidderweretrue.@.D I.  #  ` Intheearly1990's,theCityofClarksvillehiredStoryEngineeringCo.,Inc.toperformafeasibilitystudyconcerningthecapacityofitsnaturalgastransmissionsystem.RoddyL.Story,theprincipalofStoryEngineering___who_Ԁwastoperformthework,isaVanderbilttrainedengineerwhohadbeenemployedbyNashvilleGasCompanyforthirtytwoyears.Mr.StoryhadassistedwiththedesignofClarksvillesexistingsysteminthe1950's. ` AfterMr.StoryreportedthatClarksvillessystemwasnolongeradequatetomeettheexpecteddemandinthecaseofsevereweather,theCityretainedhimasprojectengineertodesigntheimprovementsandtopreparetheplansandspecificationsandothercontractdocumentsfortheproject.TheprojectMr.Storydesignedcalledfortheinstallationof116,900linearfeetof12inchO.D.coatedsteelnaturalgaspipewithfittings,600linearfeetof6DinchO.D.coatedsteelgas 1,6 pipe,andvariousregulatorstations,bridgecrossings,tieins,andrelatedappurtenances.  %8u3>  ` Becausethequalityoftheworkmanshipontheprojectwasextremely important,Mr.StoryincludedinthespecificationsandcontractdocumentsarequirementthatthesuccessfulbiddermusthaveconstructedasimilarnaturalgastransmissionpipelineprojectwithinthreeyearsprecedingthedateoftheClarksville_project.xxxx #  1      ׀MooreConstructionCompany,Inc.wasoneoftheninecompanies 4  submittingbidsontheproject.Mr.StoryrequestedMooreConstructionCompanytoprovideadditionalinformationbecauseitsoriginalbiddidnotcontainsufficientinformationaboutitspriorjobsorthepersonnelwhowouldperformthework.MooreConstructionCompanyssupplementalinformationrevealedthatthelastgaspipelineithadconstructedwasin1984inLouisiana. ` Afterevaluatingthebids,Mr.StoryinformedtheCitythatKingPipelineandUtilityCompany,Inc.hadsubmittedthelowestbidof$3,398,808andthatithadrecentlycompletedfoursimilarprojects.HealsoinformedtheCitythatMooreConstructionCompanyhadsubmittedthesecondlowestbidof$3,432,378butthatithadnotcompletedasimilarprojectwithinthepastthreeyears.MooreConstructionCompanyappearedatameetingoftheClarksvilleUtilityCommitteeshortlyafterthebidswereopenedandrequestedthatitbeawardedthecontractinaccordancewiththeCitysprocurementrulethatfavorslocalcontractorswhenthereislessthanafivepercentdifferencebetweentheirbidandthelowestbid.ThecommitteedeclinedtorecommendMooreConstructionCompanybecauseitdidnotmeetthespecificationsqualificationsforperformingthework.WhenthemattercamebeforetheClarksvilleCityCouncil,Mr.StoryinformedthecouncilmembersthatMooreConstructionCompanywas notqualifiedtoconstructtheprojectandthattheCityofClarksville,Tennessee,anditsindividualcouncilmembers...would exposeitselfandthemselvestoliabilityshoulditawardthecontractto[Moore i-(2 ConstructionCompany]...insteadoffollowing[his]recommendation....xxxx #  2      ׀  Thereafter,theCityCouncilawardedthecontracttoKingPipeline.  ` InNovember1992,MooreConstructionCompanyanditspresidentfiledsuitagainstMr.StoryandStoryEngineeringintheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCountyallegingthatMr.StorysstatementstotheCityCouncilhaddefamedanddisparagedthemandhadinterferedwiththeirprospectiveeconomicadvantage.Theyrequested$300,000inactualand$600,000inpunitivedamages.Mr.Storylatermovedforsummaryjudgment.ThetrialcourtgrantedthemotionanddismissedeachofMooreConstructionCompanysclaimsonthegroundthatMr.StorysstatementstotheCityCouncilconcerningMooreConstructionCompanysqualificationsundertheprojectsspecificationsweretrue.@.D II.  -  ` Summaryjudgmentsenjoynopresumptionofcorrectnessonappeal.SeeCity o of_Tullahoma_Ԁv.BedfordCounty,938S.W.2d408,412(Tenn.1997);_McClung_Ԁv.   DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996).Accordingly, a " reviewingcourtsmustmakeafreshdeterminationconcerningwhethertherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeensatisfied.SeeHunterv.Brown,955 #& S.W.2d49,5051(Tenn.1997);Masonv._Seaton_,942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997). D% ( Summaryjudgmentsareappropriateonlywhentherearenogenuinefactualdisputeswithregardtotheclaimordefenseembodiedinthemotionandwhenthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;_Bain_ '*w%. v.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997);_Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26 +'0 (Tenn.1995).   /Z*4  ` Courtsreviewingsummaryjudgmentsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmost favorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor.SeeRobinsonv._Omer_,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997); B Mikev.PoGroup,Inc.,937S.W.2d790,792(Tenn.1996).Thus,asummary   judgmentshouldbegrantedonlywhentheundisputedfactsreasonablysupportoneconclusionthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.See  %  McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);_Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900 v  S.W.2dat26.Apartymayobtainasummaryjudgmentbydemonstratingthatthenonmovingpartywillbeunabletoproveanessentialelementofitscase,seeByrdv.   Hall,847S.W.2d208,21213(Tenn.1993),becausetheinabilitytoprovean Y essentialelementofaclaimnecessarilyrendersallotherfactsimmaterial.See J Alexanderv.MemphisIndividualPractice_Assn_,870S.W.2d278,280(Tenn.1993);  Straussv.Wyatt,Tarrant,Combs,Gilbert&_Milom_,911S.W.2d727,729(Tenn.Ct. < App.1995).@-D III.  o  ` MooreConstructionCompanyassertsthatMr.Storywasnotentitledtoasummarydismissalofhisthreeclaimsbecauseofmaterialfactualdisputesthatrenderasummaryjudgmentinappropriate.ItclaimsthattherecordcontainsdisputedfactsregardingitsabilitytoconstructthepipelineaccordingtotheprojectspecificationsandtheCityCouncilspotentialliabilityforawardingthecontracttoacontractorwhodidnotmeetthebidrequirements.Wehavedeterminedthattheseissues,totheextentthattheyarefactual,arenotmaterialtothedispositionofthiscaseandthatMr.StoryisentitledtoajudgmentdismissingeachofMooreConstructionsclaimsasamatteroflaw.@.D A.  0+6  ` ThestatusofthetortofintentionalinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantagewasnotsettledwhenMooreConstructionCompanyfirstfileditscomplaintagainstMr.Story.However,theTennesseeSupremeCourtputthisissuetorestin1997whenitheldthatthiscauseofactionwouldnotberecognizedinTennessee.SeeNelsonv.Martin,958S.W.2d643,646(Tenn.1997).TheCourts q:5B decisionappliestocasespendingatthetimeitwashandeddown,seeAlexanderv.  _Inman_,825S.W.2d102,105(Tenn.Ct.App.1991)(applyingretroactivelythe Q TennesseeSupremeCourtsabolitionofthecommonlawtortof_alienation_Ԁofaffections).Thus,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdismissalofthisclaimbecauseitdoesnotexistunderTennesseelaw.@.D B.  v   ` MooreConstructionCompanyassertsthatitsdefamationclaimshouldnothavebeensummarilydismissedbecausethefacts,takenintheirmostfavorablelight,demonstratethatMr.Storysstatementswerefalseorfalselyimpliedtheexistenceofotherderogatoryfacts.Basedonthe_uncontroverted_ԀevidenceconcerningMr.StorysstatementstotheCityCouncil,wehavedeterminedthatMr.Storysstatementsweretrueasamatteroflaw.Therefore,thetrialcourtcorrectlysummarilydismissedthisclaimbecauseMooreConstructionCompanyfailedtodemonstratethatitwouldbeabletoproveanessentialelementofitsdefamationclaimattrial. ` Thebasisofadefamationaction,whetheritbelibelorslander,isthatthedefamatorystatementhasinjuredapersonscharacterorreputation.SeeQualityAuto "R$ PartsCo.v.BluffCityBuickCo.,876S.W.2d818,820(Tenn.1994).TheTennessee #& SupremeCourt,adoptingRestatement(Second)ofTorts580B(1977),definedthetortasfollows:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Onewhopublishesafalseanddefamatorycommunicationconcerningaprivateperson,orconcerningapublicofficialorpublicfigureinrelationtoapurelyprivatematternotaffectinghisconduct,fitnessorroleinhispubliccapacity,issubjecttoliability,if,butonlyif,he   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(a)knowsthatthestatementisfalseandthatitdefamestheother,   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(b)actsinrecklessdisregardofthesematters,or   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(c)actsnegligentlyinfailingtoascertainthem.   Press,Inc.v._Verran_,569S.W.2d435,442(Tenn.1978).Underthisformulation, b3.6 statementsthatarefactuallytruecannotprovideabasisforadefamationaction.See 5S08 StonesRiverMotors,Inc.v.MidSouthPublishingCo.,651S.W.2d713,719(Tenn. 61: Ct.App.1983). 965>  ` Mr.StorysstatementsthatMooreConstructionCompanydidnotsatisfythequalificationsforbiddingonthisprojectwerebasedoninformationthatMooreConstructionCompanyitselfprovided.ThereisnodisputethatMooreConstructionCompanyhadnotundertakentobuildanaturalgastransmissionpipelineduringthethirtysixmonthspriortobiddingonthisproject.Mr.StorysappraisalofwhetherMooreConstructionCompanyqualifiedasabidderonthisprojectcastnoreflectiononthecompanyscompetenceasacontractor,butratherreflectedtheundisputedfactthatthecompanydidnotsatisfythepriorexperiencerequirementinthespecificationsforthisproject. ` MooreConstructionalsoassertsthatMr.StoryswarningabouttheCityCouncilsexposuretoliabilityisfalseanddefamatory.Thisstatement,whichislittlemorethananexpressionoflegalopinionbyalayperson,isalsocorrect.Localgovernmentalofficialsarenotimmunefromsuitforwillfulorwantonactsoractsamountingtogrossnegligence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2920201(b)(2)(Supp. ~ 1997).BecauseitwasundisputedthatMooreConstructionCompanydidnotmeetthequalificationstobid,Mr.Storyscautionabouttheconsequencesofawardingacontracttoconstructanaturalgaspipelinetoacontractorwhodidnotmeetthequalificationstobidwasneitherinappropriatenordefamatory.@.D C. D% (   ` MooreConstructionCompanysfinalclaimisfordisparagement.Eventhough (#, Tennesseecourtshavenotspecificallyrecognizedthistort,itisamongtheclassesoftortsrecognizedintheRestatement(Second)ofTorts623(A)(1977)whichprovides:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Onewhopublishesafalsestatementharmfultotheinterestsofanotherissubjecttoliabilityforpecuniarylossresultingtotheotherif   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(a)heintendsforpublicationofthestatementtoresultinharmtointerestsoftheotherhavingapecuniaryvalue,oreitherrecognizesorshouldrecognizethatitislikelytodoso,and   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(b)heknowsthatthestatementisfalseoractsinrecklessdisregardofitstruthorfalsity.    B 8 4= Thiscasedoesnotprovideanappropriatevehicleforexplicitlyrecognizing disparagementasaseparatetortbecauseMooreConstructionCompanyhasbeenunabletodemonstratethatitwillbeabletoproveanessentialingredientofthecauseofaction. ` Likeaclaimfordefamation,aclaimfordisparagementmustbebasedonafalsestatement.WehavealreadydeterminedthatMr.StorysstatementsconcerningMooreConstructionCompanysinabilitytoqualifyasabidderundertheprojectsspecificationsandhiscautionofthepossibleconsequencesofawardingthebidtoanonresponsivebidderweretrueandcorrect.Accordingly,thesestatements,asamatteroflaw,cannotsupportacauseofactionfordisparagement.@.D IV.  <  ` Weaffirmthesummaryjudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.Wetaxthecostsofthisappeal,jointlyandseverally,toMooreConstructionCompanyandPaulW.Mooreandtheirsuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue. `     h      p ______________________________ `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:__________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION__________________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGEy  x4/6 _7քdd7ք @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)DATNASHVILLE  h քքMOORECONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY, p )   INC.,andPAULW.MOORE,     p )    `     h      p ) ` Plaintiffs/Appellants,     p )    >  `     h      p )  MontgomeryCircuit T  VS. `     h      p )  No.C931#քcL#քք j   `     h      p )STORYENGINEERINGCOMPANY, p )  AppealNo.#քN#քք F  INC.,andRODDYL.STORY,     p )  01A019606CV00267#քO#քք \   `     h      p ) ` Defendants/Appellees.     p )  #քP# @(DJUDGMENT   ք ` ThiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromtheMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourt,thebriefsoftheparties,andargumentsofcounsel.Uponconsiderationoftheentirerecord,thiscourtfindsandconcludesthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentshouldbeaffirmed. ` Inaccordancewiththeopinionfiledcontemporaneouslywiththisjudgment,itis,therefore,ordered,adjudged,anddecreedthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentbeandisherebyaffirmed,thatthecauseberemandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththiscourtsopinion,andthatthecostsbetaxedinthemannerprovidedinthisjudgment. ` Itisfurtherorderedthatthecostsofthisappealbetaxedjointlyandseverally,toMooreConstructionCompanyandPaulW.Moore,pprincipals,andpyxqTomasqxyxThomasxqN.Bateman,surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessaryqyr___ry.ys ` ENTER_____________________.swvvwyyuttuy `     h     __________________________________ `     h     HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGE `     h     MIDDLESECTION `     h     __________________________________ `     h     SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE `     h     __________________________________ `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGEy