Linda Jean Hamilton Mowles

Knoxville Office
One Centre Square, Fifth Floor
620 Market Street
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Telephone (865) 546-4646
Fax (865) 523-6529

lmowles@lewisking.com

Education
Taylor University, B.S., 1969
University of Tennessee, J.D., 1983

Bar Admission
1983 Tennessee

Practice Areas
Litigation
Insurance
Business, Commercial
Product Liability

Linda Mowles concentrates her practice on complex litigation and intellectual property while also chairing Lewis King’s Appellate Practice. Ms. Mowles began her association with the firm as a law clerk in her second year of law school and she has been with Lewis King for over 25 years, becoming a shareholder in 1987. Ms. Mowles’ practice primarily involves civil litigation in the areas of product liability and insurance defense, appellate practice, and intellectual property. She has appeared in cases before most of the state trial courts in the counties of East Tennessee, in all Divisions of the United States District Court in Tennessee, and in numerous trial courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, and Georgia.

Ms. Mowles is active in the defense of various products, such as motor vehicles, compressed gas cartridges, breast implants, medical devices, breweries, and recreational vehicles. She has used an aggressive motion practice to obtain dismissals as a matter of law in significant cases involving claims for wrongful death, for catastrophic personal injuries, and with respect to injuries to children. Ms. Mowles is familiar with representing both the United States and foreign companies, having personally defended companies such as Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Doko Boeki Co., Ltd., Kawasaki Motor Co., Ltd., Nippon Tansan Gas Co., Ltd., Tabata Co., Ltd. as well as their related American subsidiaries.

Ms. Mowles’ active intellectual property practice involves the registration of copyrights, trademarks, and service marks for her clients and defending the owner’s rights against infringement and counterfeit.

In her appellate practice, Ms. Mowles has presented cases to and argued before all the sections of the Tennessee Court of Appeals and Tennessee Supreme Court. Regarding federal appeals, she is admitted to and has appeared before the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and has also participated in appeals before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. She is frequently called upon to speak regarding effective appellate practice.

Ms. Mowles is identified as a Mentor for the Moment in the Knoxville Bar Association for both appellate practice and intellectual property matters.

Representative Experience:

• Responsible for all litigation discovery directed to an international manufacturer and its U. S. subsidiaries on a semi-national basis for multi-model product line. Responsible for working with the client in preparation of the responses and for working with trial counsel in supporting the response in the course of litigation, including personally presenting the arguments, as necessary, related to discovery matters in trial courts in over 20 states.
  
  
• Obtained summary judgment for the manufacturer and distributor in a product liability lawsuit involving catastrophic injuries to a child.
  
  
• Representation of manufacturer in obtaining negotiated settlement of federal court product liability case on appeal from jury verdict against the defendant manufacturer. The jury returned an excessive verdict and defendant appealed to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mediation on appeal failed prior to briefing the appeal and the case was argued to the three-judge appellate court panel after which the panel ordered that the case be mediated once again, prior to a decision being rendered. The case settled for significantly less than the verdict returned.

Ms. Mowles’ speaking engagements include:

• June 2001 – Lake Las Vegas, Nevada -- presenter to medical device manufacturers and counsel regarding spoliation of evidence.
  
  
• June 2002 – Knoxville, Tennessee – presenter at a National Business Institute Seminar on Voir Dire
  
  
• March 2003 – Knoxville, Tennessee – co-presenter at National Business Institute Seminar on the Admission of Evidence
  
  
• December 2003 – Knoxville, Tennessee – co-presenter at National Business Institute Seminar on Superior Deposition Strategies in Tennessee Civil Trial Practice
  
  
• December 2003 – Knoxville, Tennessee – panel member at Knoxville Bar Association seminar on law firm politics
  
  
• December 2004 – Knoxville, Tennessee – co-presenter at National Business Institute Seminar on Deposing the Expert Witness
  
  
• March 2006 – Knoxville, Tennessee – Presenter at annual convention of Smoky Mountain Paralegal Association on the topic of Avoiding Pitfalls in Tennessee Appellate Practice
  
  
• June 2006 – Hilton Head, South Carolina – Presenter at annual convention of South Carolina Society of Professional Land Surveyors on the topic of Copyright and the Surveyor’s Work Product
  
  
• June 2006 – Knoxville, Tennessee – Presenter at East Tennessee Lawyers Association of Women on the topic of Winning Appellate Practice
  
  
• November 2007 – Knoxville, Tennessee – Co-presenter at National Business Institute Seminar on Internet Research
  
  
• November 2008 – Knoxville, Tennessee – Co-presenter at Lorman seminar on Legal Ethics

Ms. Mowles has personally developed the record, written the briefs and presented the argument to the appellate court in well over 165 appeals. Some of the significant appellate matters she has handled include:

• Beth Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., 551 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2008) rehearing en banc denied 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13258 (2009). Representing Defendant Appellant.  We applied for appellate review pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (C.A.F.A.) of the trial court’s order remanding Plaintiff’s class action complaint to state court.  The Sixth Circuit granted the discretionary appeal and, after briefing, argument and consideration, the Court reversed the trial court’s remand order.
  
  
• Loveall v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 694 S.W.2d 937 (Tenn. 1985) Representing Defendant Appellant. We applied, clarified, and delineated the characteristics of Tennessee law for the issuance of protective orders for trade secret information in pre-trial discovery. Plaintiff in a product liability case wanted to obtain documents in pre-trial discovery production which the Defendants considered to be trade secret. Defendants moved for a protective order under T.R.C.P. 26, and Plaintiff argued First Amendment rights to the material. The trial court denied the request for protective order. The Court of Appeals denied interlocutory review of the issue. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted extraordinary review of the issue and, ultimately, reversed the trial court, granting Defendants' motion for protective order. Decision cited in cases, law reviews, secondary sources and treatises 23 times since decision rendered.
  
  
• Hall v. Tollett, 128 F.3d 418 (6th Circuit 1997). Representing Plaintiffs Appellants, their several separate suits consolidated into one for appeal purposes. Plaintiffs filed discrimination suit against county sheriff asserting that employment was terminated because of positions taken in county election. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment as to all Plaintiffs saying that there was no evidence that the sheriff knew of the positions taken in voting and, therefore, no discrimination. We were able to obtain reversal of one of the summary judgment orders in the Sixth Circuit. Decision cited in 126 cases, law reviews, secondary sources, and treatises.
  
  
• Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al., 52 F.3d 1311 (5th Circuit, 1995) Representing Defendant Appellant. In product liability suit, jury returned verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the Plaintiff. We were able to obtain reversal and dismissal of case by the Sixth Circuit. This order was pending en banc review when the Mississippi Supreme Court rendered a decision that affected the Fifth Circuit application of the open and obvious defense. This resulted in the Sixth Circuit vacating their initial decision, remanding to the trial court, with then a second appeal to the Fifth Circuit seeking reversal of all damages awarded in the case. The Fifth Circuit ultimately issued this published decision that affirmed the compensatory award but reversed and dismissed the punitive damage award. Cited in 47 cases, law reviews, secondary sources, and treatises.
  
  
• Shorter v. McManus, C.A. NO. 03A01-9704-CV-00132, Court of Appeals, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 789, November 13, 1997 Representing Defendants Appellees. Defense of wrongful death case in which plaintiff was attempting to place liability under theory of negligent entrustment on parents of decedent’s friend. The case related to the wrongful death of a 13 year old boy when he was hit by a pick up truck while riding the motor scooter owned by the defendants’ 13-year old son. Plaintiffs brought the wrongful death suit against the defendants on the theory of negligent entrustment, asserting that defendant parents had negligently entrusted the scooter to their son, who in turn negligently entrusted it to plaintiffs’ son, who was then fatally injured. The trial court granted summary judgment and Ms. Mowles sustained it through the appeals.
  
  
• Bridges v. Liberty Ins. Co., 101 S.W.3d 64 (Tenn. 2000). Representing Defendant Appellee. In this worker's compensation case, the chancellor found employee was not totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis but ruled that he was entitled to benefits under the general occupational diseases statute and an award of fifteen percent permanent partial disability. On appeal, we were able to obtain reversal of the award of disability benefits on the basis that the medical evidence showed plaintiff suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, which is not an occupational disease, and from pneumoconiosis, which is not totally disabling and therefore not compensable. The trial court's award of fifteen percent permanent partial disability was thus not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the appellate court dismissed the case. Cited in nine cases since rendered.
  
  
• Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Fred S. Post, Jr., Co., 747 S.W.2d 777 (Tenn. 1988). Representing Plaintiff Appellant. We obtained reformation of an insurance policy subsequent to a fire loss in which the insured made a claim under the policy as erroneously issued. The trial court ordered reformation of the policy but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court then reversed the appellate court judgment, ruling that there was clear and cogent evidence of a mistake in the typing or drafting of the policy. An insurance contract was reformed only on clear and cogent evidence of fraud or of a mistake in the drafting of the policy which rendered the terms of the policy different from those the parties agreed on. The new policy as issued did not reflect the parties' agreement. Reformation corrected the error so that the policy corresponded with the parties' antecedent agreement. Cited in 13 cases, law reviews, secondary sources, and treatises.
  
  
• Miller v. Mt. Laurel Chalets, Inc., et al., 88 S.W.3d 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) Representing Defendant Appellee. In this slip and fall case, the guests at a mountain chalet argued that the chalet was in a dangerous state because defendants failed to post warnings with respect to the fact that the door opened by the guest was a door to a flight of stairs to the basement. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment. The Court of Appeals found that the guest's failure to turn on lights, coupled with her willingness to open the door and step into an unfamiliar area, was such a departure from reasonable conduct under the circumstances that defendants could not have reasonably foreseen that conduct and its consequences. Premises owners did not owe a duty to invitees to warn of latent or hidden dangers if the danger was open and obvious. The summary judgment was affirmed. Cited in three cases, law reviews, treatises, or secondary sources since issuance.

The appellate court system renders both published and unpublished decisions in appellate cases. The following is a listing of the published decisions, in addition to those listed above, that have been rendered in appeals that Ms. Mowles has personally handled.  Cases resulting in unpublished decisions can be identified by an electronic search of Linda J. Hamilton Mowles on services such as Westlaw or Lexis.

• Cloyd v. Hartco Flooring Co., 274 S.W.3d 638 (Tenn. 2008) (Worker’s Compensation)
  
  
• Trosper v. Armstrong wood Products, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 598 (Tenn. 2008) (Worker’s Compensation)
  
  
• Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008)
  
  
• Hill v. CNA Ins. Co., NO., 985 S.W.2d 959 (Tenn. 1999) (Worker’s Compensation)
  
  
• Ogren v. Housecall Health Care, 101 S.W.3d 55 (Tenn. 1998) (Worker’s Compensation)
  
  
• Estel Owens v. CNA Insurance Company, 715 S.W.2d 598 (Tenn., 1986).
  
  
• Scott Allan Abbott b/n/f Judith K. Abbott and Judith K. Abbott, Individually v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al. 682 S.W.2d 206, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P10, 292, (Tenn. App., 1984), Perm. App. Denied (Tenn. 1984).
  
  
• Clark v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 774 S.W.2d 586; (Tenn. 1989 )
  
  
• Poling v. Goins, Supreme Court of Tennessee, 713 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn.  1986)
  
  
• Smith v. Lincoln Brass Works, 712 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn. 1986)
  
  
• City of Sevierville v. Green, 115 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) Corrected April 2, 2004. As Amended March 4, 2003.
  
  
• Hamrick’s, Inc. v. Shepherd, 115 S.W.3d 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) petition for appeal denied by Hamrick's, Inc. v. Roy, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 823 (Tenn., Sept. 2, 2003).
  
  
• Reagan v. Higgins, 88 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)
  
  
• Evridge v. American Honda Motor Co, 685 S.W.2d 632, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P10, 380, (Tenn. 1985)
  
  
• Yearout v. Trusty, 684 S.W.2d 612 (Tenn. 1984) petition to rehear denied 684 S.W.2d 612 at 614.
  
  
• FDIC v. Tyree, 698 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) permission to appeal denied by Supreme Court October 21, 1985.
  
  
• First Util. Dist. Of Knox County v. Jarnigan -Bodden, 40 S.W.3d 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) rehearing denied March 5, 2001; petition for permission to appeal denied, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 200.
  
  
• Coe v. City of Sevierville, 21 S.W.3d 237 (Tenn. App. 2000) petition for permission to appeal denied 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 324.
  
  
• Jackson v. Bradley, 987 S.W.2d 852 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) petition for permission to appeal denied 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 142.
  
  
• Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al., 939 S.W.2d 83  CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14,709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
  
  
• Graves v. Grady’s, Inc., 906 S.W.2d 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) petition for rehearing denied 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 462; petition for permission to appeal denied 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 550.
  
  
• Lady v. Kregger, 747 S.W.2d 342 (Tenn. Ct. App.  1987) petition for permission to appeal denied March 7, 1988.
  
  
•  State of Tennessee ex rel Estep v. Peters, 815 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn. 1991)