In Hester v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174539 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 8, 2025), the Middle District of Tennessee declined to take a disputed roof‑replacement case away from a jury, holding that factual questions remain when an insurer insists repairs can be made with “matching” shingles and the policyholder
Parks recently posted about the new Rules adopted by the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance that go into effect on October 9, 2017. The first of those rules makes clear the purpose “is to set forth minimum standards for the investigation and disposition of claims.” (Rule 0780-01-05-.01). While there are plenty of items worthy of discussion in the Commissioner’s soon-to-be effective Rules, the one that stood out to me relates to “matching.” Here’s what the Rule says:
Continue Reading Commissioner Confirms Insurers Must Pay for Matching
I’ve just posted the new regulations promulgated by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance governing the investigation and disposition of claims arising under certain types of insurance issued to residents in Tennessee. We’ve attended the hearings that were held on these regulations, and followed the rulemaking process. Regulation 0780-01-05-.010, entitled Standards for Prompt, Fair and Equitable Settlements Applicable to Fire and Extended Coverage Type Policies with Replacement Cost Coverage, contains two provisions which may expand fire insurer’s obligations when calculating replacement cost:
Continue Reading 2017 TENNESSEE UNFAIR CLAIMS PRACTICES REGULATIONS – Replacement Cost Valuation Rules
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