TWCA Reviews Which Insurance Company is Liable for Covering Employee’s Treatment

JIMMY RANKIN v. EVERYBODY'S OIL CORPORATION d/b/a QUICK TIRE/TIRE BARN, ET AL. (TWCA March 10, 2011)

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The employee sustained a work-related injury in September 2007, but medical treatment was not offered by the employer at that time. He continued to work for several months despite his injury. In March 2008, his employer sent him to a physician. He was diagnosed with a significant spinal injury, which required surgical treatment and resulted in severe disability. His employer had changed its workers' compensation insurer in November 2007.

Employee's claim was settled, but the two insurers disagreed as to which was liable. The trial court found that the insurer at the time of the original injury was liable. That insurer has appealed, contending that the later insurer should be liable due to the gradual worsening of the employee's condition after November 2007. We affirm the judgment.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/rankinj_031011.pdf

TWCA Reviews Insurer Liability in a Case in Which Employer had Two Workers' Comp Policies at the Time of Employee's Injury

BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. S & W BUILDERS, INC. ET AL. (TWCA March 3, 2011)

In this workers' compensation action, the trial court held that the employee sustained a compensable injury to his neck. The trial court found that the employee had a 30% impairment as a result of the injury and awarded 75% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer had two policies of workers' compensation insurance in effect on the date of the injury.

The trial court held each insurer liable for one-half of the benefits paid to the employee. One of the insurers has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the finding that the employee sustained a compensable injury and that it erred in its apportionment of liability. We affirm the judgment.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2011/buildersmutual_030311.pdf

TCA examines insurer liability for uninsured motorist after automobile crash.

ANDREA S. MARTIN v. PATRICIA L. WILLIAMS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2009)

The central issue in this case is which of two insurance companies is required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to the company through which Plaintiff had automobile insurance, finding that the company insuring the automobile in which Plaintiff was a passenger held the primary policy. We reverse and remand.

The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/martina_073009.pdf

Court looks at insurance policy exclusions for liability

TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL NEILL (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 2009)

Insurance company filed suit for a declaration that the policy exclusion for intentional acts applied to an injury arising from a paintball game. The trial court ruled for the insured. We affirm.

The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/neillm_060309.pdf