Reversing a directed verdict for the defendants, a state appeals court found that it should be up to a jury to decide whether piercing the corporate veil is appropriate where a corporation is alleged to have diverted funds owed to creditors.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a case appealed by a subcontractor plaintiff, who entered into a work agreement with DJ Exteriors, a construction company providing masonry, siding and roofing services. After the company failed to pay for the work completed and they took cash distributions instead, the plaintiff, Ruben Estrada, filed claims for breach of contract, arguing on appeal that piercing the corporate veil, fraudulent conveyance and punitive damages were appropriate.
