Tennessee’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Tennessee, workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where the employee might obtain monetary damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injuries.

The rule generally bars an employee from suing: 1) the employer; 2) the employer’s insurance carrier; and 3) co-employees acting within the scope of employment.

TYPES OF INJURIES COVERED

Physical injuries, occupational diseases (e.g., asbestosis), and mental injuries resulting from a specific work-related event or physical injury are covered by the rule.

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

If an employer actually intended to injure the employee, the exclusive remedy rule does not apply. Negligence, even gross negligence or reckless disregard for safety, is generally not enough. For example, the mere fact that the employer knew about a dangerous condition or that the injury was substantially certain to occur is not enough. 

Tennessee hearing officers and courts apply the exception narrowly.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

If the employer fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the employee may sue the employer in tort. 

'THIRD PARTY' LAWSUITS

Employees can still third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers, contractors) whose negligence caused or contributed to their injury.

COWORKERS

The rule generally prevents employees from suing co-employees who injure them. However, an injured employee may be able to sue a co-employee if the co-employee:

• Was acting outside the scope of employment; or
• Willfully or intentionally injured the employee.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE

The dual capacity doctrine exception generally does not apply. In most states, injured employees may sue an employer where the employer occupies a separate role unrelated to employment. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee. That’s generally not the case in Tennessee.

STATUTORY EMPLOYEES

The rule applies to employees. However, it also applies to “statutory employees.” A statutory employee is an individual whom the law treats as an "employee" for workers’ compensation purposes.

This typically arises where a subcontractor fails to carry workers' compensation insurance and the subcontractor’s employee is injured at work. The principal contractor (the company that hired the subcontractor) becomes the "statutory employer." It also becomes liable for the injured worker’s medical bills and disability benefits as if it had hired the worker directly. This also means that the exclusive remedy rule applies, protecting the principal contractor from being sued by the injured worker for negligence.

In Tennessee, for a company to be considered a principal contractor for purposes of receiving the protections of the statutory employer rule: the company must retain the right of control over the conduct of the work and the subcontractor's employees, and the work being performed by the subcontractor's employees must be part of the regular business of the company or the same type of work usually performed by the company's employees.

RECENT CASES

Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Co, No. M2023-00249-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. 12/22/25)

A worker for another company was sent to Tractor Supply to stock shelves. A rack of items fell on and injured him. He sought to sue Tractor Supply for negligence. The Supreme Court declined to block the lawsuit. The exclusive remedy rule did not apply. The court stated that a store cannot claim "statutory employer" status simply because a vendor's employee is stocking shelves or performing incidental services on their premises; the relationship must be a true "contractor-subcontractor" services arrangement. Here, the relationship was merely a product vendor-purchaser arrangement. The court allowed the injured worker to continue with his lawsuit against Tractor Supply. It reversed the lower court’s ruling, which can be found here. 

Bernard v. Amazon Services, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-01341 (M.D. Tenn. 03/05/25)

An employee at an Amazon facility claimed that he was continuously harassed and ultimately physically attacked by a coworker. He sued Amazon for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. Amazon sought dismissal based on the exclusive remedy rule. The court found that the employee’s complaint did not explain what motivated the assault. Thus, it wasn’t yet clear if the injury arose out of employment–a requirement to trigger the exclusive remedy rule. Since it was up to the employer to prove that the exclusive remedy bar applied, the case could move forward for now. The court declined to dismiss it.

Lowe v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC, No. M2023-01774-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 11/21/24)

A millwright for a contractor of a tire manufacturer was killed while working at the manufacturer's facility. A 2,200-pound tire mold, which was suspended in the air by two straps and two bolts, fell on him while he was working to clear rubber clogs in the mold's vent holes. The millwright's wife brought a negligence action against the manufacturer, which asserted that it was immune from suit based on Tennessee's workers' compensation exclusivity rules. She contended her husband was a statutory employee. According to the court, there were triable factual disputes regarding whether the manufacturer had the right to control the work conducted by the millwright and whether work done by the contractor was a regular part of the manufacturer's business. That meant the court declined to grant judgment for the manufacturer. In a decision summarized here, the court held that the case could head to trial.

For workers' compliance materials in Tennessee and across the country, head to Simply Research.

Share This Article: