We don’t usually post liability related matters on this blog, but every once and a while there is a ruling that warrants mention. That ruling was issued today by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Dedmon v. Steelman W2015-01462-SC-R11-CV (click on case for full copy of opinion). While I may disagree with the result, it is
Litigation Tactics
Insurance Companies Bear the Burden of Proving Arson
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…
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…
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 …
Tennessee Federal Court Allows Claim for Punitive Damages Against Insurer to Proceed
In Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 970 F. Supp.2d 784 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2013), the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee allowed a policyholder’s claim for punitive damages to proceed, holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a stand-alone claim for negligence infliction of emotional distress. Ms. Montesi…
Beware of the Shortened Limitation Period to File Suit Contained in Most Insurance Policies
The Tennessee Court of Appeals rendered another decision yesterday concerning the limitations period that is applicable to lawsuits to enforce an insurance policy. The court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit, ruling that the lawsuit was filed outside the time period allowed in the insurance policy. A copy of the case, Gagne v. State Farm. can be downloaded here…
Use of Social Networking Evidence in Insurance and Workers’ Compensation Litigation
Two of our readers from Minnesota, Gregory M. Duhl (Associate Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law) and Jaclyn Millner (of Fitch, Johnson, Larson & Held, P.A.) have recently posted a draft of an article (to be published in the Pace Law Review) on the use of social networking evidence in insurance …
The “Draft” expert report – is it still discoverable in federal court?
The U.S. Supreme Court has apparently approved changes to the rules governing expert discovery in federal court. These changes are set to take effect December 1, 2010. The most interesting, and the one drawing attention at this time, is the Supreme Court‘s exempting of drafts of expert reports from discovery. The Committee on Rules of Practice and …