My learned friend Parks Chastain recently posted here that Tennessee law provides for a reverse bad faith penalty of not more than 25% of the amount claimed when a policyholder does not bring an action in good faith.  Parks’ use of the adage "what’s good for the goose is good for the gander" is right

 As a result of the numerous tornados that have passed through Tennessee over the past decade, I have become acutely aware of the fact that insurance companies use the same engineering firms over and over again in their investigation of whether a claim constitutes a covered loss.  The obvious problem with insurance companies’ repeated use

Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-106 brings the old adage of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” to first party insurance litigation in Tennessee. It provides a penalty against the policyholder of an amount not exceeding twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount claimed when:

 

  • The policyholder does not recover under the

 I ran across a good article (pdf) this evening by Robins H. Ledyard entitled Treatment of Insurance Claims under Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  Published in the Federation of Regulatory Counsel Journal in the Fall of 2008, the article gives a short synopsis of our Supreme Court’s analysis of TCPA claims in the

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). 

I cannot count the number of times I have had an insured’s lawyer misunderstand the difference between these two proceedings. Depositions and examinations under oath are different activities. Cases recognize that “depositions and examinations under oath serve different purposes.” Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Nilsen, 745 So. 2d 264, 268 (Ala. 1999); accord Goldman v. State

Magistrate Ed Bryant (W.D. Tenn.) recently issued a Report and Recommendation in one of my cases in which he held that Tennessee law allows an independent adjuster to be held liable under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  The defendant independent adjuster argued that my client failed to state a claim under the TCPA because the