What Does a Mercedes-Benz Have to Do with Insurance Litigation?
The Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, issued a new opinion yesterday interpreting the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The case, Timoshchuk v. Long of Chattanooga Mercedes-Benz et al (.pdf), arose from a Mercedes dealer's sale of a "new" Mercedes which turned out to be not so new. A few months after purchasing his shiny new Mercedes, the very distraught and obviously angry new car owner discovered that the paint on the vehicle's trunk appeared discolored in certain lighting conditions. The car owner eventually learned that the car had been damaged during shipment and subsequently repaired by a dealer. Now thoroughly upset, he demanded to return the vehicle, which the dealer refused to accept. As expected, a lawsuit ensued.
The issue in the case, as relevant for our discussion here, was whether the defendants violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act's general prohibition "unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce constitute unlawful acts or practices." T.C.A. 47-18-104. The defendant argued that the TCPA claim was barred because the plaintiff could not prove one of the specifically enumerated acts or practices of TCA 47-18-104(b). The Court of Appeals disagreed with this analysis, noting that such an argument ignores the fact that a specific claim was made under the broader prohibition of T.C.A. 47-18-104(a).
Although the case itself has nothing to do with insurance, it is important because it makes clear that a plaintiff does not have to plead one of the specifically enumerated unfair or deceptive acts or practices of TCA 47-18-104(b). Granted, TCA 47-18-104(b) also has a "catch-all" provision that prohibits "engaging in any other act or practice which is deceptive to the consumer." But this provision of subsection (b) only prohibits "deceptive" conduct, not both "unfair" and "deceptive" conduct. This distinction is important because "unfair" and"deceptive" have been separately defined by Tennessee courts, with the term "deceptive" having a somewhat more limited scope than "unfair."
I've had this issue come up in several cases when defense attorneys argue that a particular claim is barred when relief is sought for an act that fits into the definition of "unfair" but not "deceptive." Although I never considered it to have much merit, such an argument is now officially dead in the water. The Timoshchuk case makes clear that there are really two "catch-all" provisions in the TCPA. One is at TCA 47-18-104(b)(27) (engaging in "any other act or practice which is deceptive"), but the general prohibition in TCA 47-18-104(a) that prohibits both unfair and deceptive acts or practices is a stand-alone "catch-all" provision as well.
The lesson? If you are going to plead violations of the TCPA by pleading violations of specific portions of the statute, then be sure to plead both TCA 47-18-104(a) and (b).
By the way, the unhappy Mercedes owner didn't fare too well. His claims were dismissed (for reasons completely unrelated to the issues discussed above).
A Word About the Crossley Decision
On the topic of whether independent adjusters should be held liable under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (see my prior post here and Parks' rebuttal here), a case commonly cited by defendant insurance companies and adjusters is Crossley Const. Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 237 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Although Crossley does hold that the TCPA does not apply to the claims handling process, the opinion is somewhat of an aberration in that it is completely out of line with other decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court. For example, in Gaston v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 120 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. 2003), the Tennessee Supreme Court encountered the issue of whether an insurer can be held liable under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act for unfair and deceitful actions in the handling of an insured's claim. In that case, the insurance adjuster withheld important information from the insureds concerning how the insureds needed to proceed during the claims process. The insurance company argued that the TCPA does not apply to insurance companies in the handling of claims, but this argument was flatly rejected by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See also Newman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 42 S.W.3d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Stooksbury v. Am. Nat'l. Prop. & Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
In my opinion, the Crossley decision was simply not an accurate application of binding Tennessee law. The purpose of the TCPA is to protect consumers from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices of any trade or commerce, and it must be construed broadly to effectuate that purpose. As a result, it would be contradictory to public policy and the stated intent of the legislature if unfair or deceptive actions of adjusters, whether employees or independent, were punishable only up until the point of contract formation. Everything is usually rosy and nice at the front end when the policy is first obtained. Its what happens when a claim is filed that demands attention.
