Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Faye L. Green, who was injured in an automobile accident and subsequently hired attorney Robert L. Whitaker to seek damages. The case settled for $50,000, with Green's medical expenses covered by Access MedPLUS, a TennCare contractor with subrogation rights. Innovative Recovery Services, Inc. (IRSI), managing subrogation for Access MedPLUS, sought reimbursement from the settlement. Whitaker filed for a declaratory judgment to reduce IRSI's subrogation claim by one-third for attorney fees, but the trial court granted summary judgment to IRSI due to the absence of a contractual relationship with Whitaker. On appeal, Whitaker argued that Green had not been made whole, but this contention was dismissed as it was not raised at trial. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the lack of a contractual relationship and referencing Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-117, which allows for attorney fees if the attorney is notified of the state's claim before settlement disbursement. The court cited *Travelers Insurance Co. v. Williams*, confirming that an attorney cannot claim fees without express or implied contract, as Whitaker was informed his services were unnecessary. The case was remanded to the Chancery Court of Davidson County, with costs taxed to Green.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Fees and Contractual Relationshipssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that no contractual relationship existed between the attorney and the insurer, precluding any claim for attorney fees due to explicit notification that the attorney's services were not required.
Reasoning: In *Williams*, the court found no such contract or unjust enrichment between the insurer and the insured’s attorney, noting that one cannot be unjustly enriched by unsolicited services when the provider is informed their services are not needed.
Made-Whole Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court did not consider the made-whole doctrine because it was not raised at the trial level, thus affirming the trial court's decision based on procedural grounds.
Reasoning: IRSI countered that this argument was not presented at trial, preventing the court from considering whether the made-whole doctrine applied.
Subrogation Rights under Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-117subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that the state's subrogation rights are subject to reasonable attorney fees if the attorney is notified before fund disbursement, which did not occur in this case.
Reasoning: It referenced Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-117, which establishes the state's subrogation rights for TennCare recipients and notes that these rights are subject to reasonable attorney fees, provided the attorney is notified of the state's claim before fund disbursement.