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…
The Law of Matching in Tennessee
A hail storm hits a shingled roof, but only damages a handful of shingles. Unfortunately, the shingles on the roof are no longer manufactured, which would result in a mismatched checkerboard of colors on the roof if only the few damaged shingles were replaced. In those circumstances, is the insurance company obligated to replace the…
Cosmetic Damage – Honest Disagreement or Reckless Misbehavior?
Insurance companies are increasingly denying claims based on engineering reports that there is “no functional damage” (damage which impairs the functionality of the roof) and that the damage is “cosmetic only.” For example, if a hail storm comes through and wreaks havoc on a metal roof to a home, it might still be functional even…
Insureds Have Obligations Too
In this age where assaults against policy conditions are common, it is good to see a court recognize that an insured has an obligation, and a burden, when seeking to recover insurance benefits. In Meyers v. Farm Aid Association of Loudon County, No. E2103-02585-COA-R9-CV, filed December 9, 2014 (download Meyers v. Farmers Aid), …