Back in November 2013, I had the great honor to represent Larry and Sue Banks in their case against Cincinnati Insurance Company. My partner, Clint Scott, and I presented the case to a federal jury and after deliberations, the jury returned a verdict for more than $2.2 million. The insurance company accused the Banks of
2015
When it Comes to Insurance Policies, There is No Difference in Cosmetic Damage and Functional Damage
In the past, I’ve posted a few articles regarding the recent trend of insurers to attempt to deny hail damage claims on the basis that the damage is “cosmetic” rather than “functional.” Most commonly, the issue arises when there are hail dents to a metal roof and the insurance company denies the claim on the…
Insurers’ Marketshare in Tennessee
In the most recent statement by the Commissioner of Insurance regarding insurance companies’ marketshare of homeowners’ policies in Tennessee, it appears that there are two primary players – State Farm and Farm Bureau (Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company). State Farm leads the way with a market share of 25%, with Farm Bureau second at 19%. …
Another Appellate Opinion Regarding the Timeliness of a Lawsuit
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals issued yet another decision concerning when a lawsuit must be filed in order to be timely. In a well-reasoned and fair opinion authored by Judge Gibson, the Court of Appeals made clear once again that the question of when a claim accrues is fact intensive and requires a knowledge and…
SUIT AGAINST US CLAUSE APPLIES TO ALL CLAIMS INCLUDING FAILURE TO PROCURE
The Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Maples v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., E2015-00285-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). The Maples case dealt with fire damage to the Maples’ home in Crossville, Tennessee, insured with Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company. Coverage was denied on August 26, 2013. Suit was filed on August…
“MAKE AVAILABLE” DOES NOT REQUIRE INSURERS TO OFFER SINKHOLE COVERAGE
Tennessee has a statute, T.C.A. § 56-7-130, concerning insurance company requirements with respect to providing sink hole coverage and handling sink hole claims. The statute was recently amended, and prior to July 1, 2014, was the subject of much litigation. At issue was whether the statute requiring insurance carriers to “make available” sink hole coverage …
Another Court Allows Punitive Damages Claim to Proceed
In June of this year, Judge Tom Anderson joined the ranks of other judges in Tennessee that have held that punitive damages can be awarded against an insurance company for breach of an insurance contract, if the breach was intentional, malicious, reckless, or malicious. The case was Carroll v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Company,…
Sixth Circuit Holds that Demolition Can Trigger Application of the Valued Policy Law
SUIT LIMITATIONS CLAUSE APPLIED WHERE CARRIER ACCEPTS THE CLAIM AND MAKES PARTIAL PAYMENT
On April 6, 2015, the Tennessee Court of Appeals (Western Section), decided the case of Daniel v. Allstate, No. W2014-01965-COA-R3-CV (download copy here). In this case, the trial court had granted summary judgment to an insurer based upon the one-year contractual limitations period under the policy. Factually, the subject property was damaged by fire…
Farm Bureau’s “Take It or Leave It Offer” Determined to be Unfair Claims Practice
In Brooks v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014), an insured’s home was damaged by a tornado and an independent adjuster hired by the insurance company offered the homeowner $56,788 to resolve the claim. The homeowner disagreed with the estimate and refused to settle…