Court reviews whether a collision occurred between the Plaintiff and a tractor-trailer

SHERRY HUTSON v. SAFE STAR TRUCKING ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 31, 2012)

In this case, Sherry Hutson filed a complaint in which she alleged her vehicle was struck by a tractor-trailer (“the tractor”) that left the scene of the accident. She seeks to recover under the uninsured motorist (“UM”) provisions of a policy providing coverage to the vehicle she was driving. The jury found that no “actual physical contact ha[d] occurred between” the plaintiff’s vehicle and the vehicle that left the scene. She appeals. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hutsons_103112.pdf

Court reviews the limitation of liability in an insurance policy in a case involving a city volunteer

PAUL VINCENT GIANNINI v. AMANDA PROFFITT (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2012)

This appeal involves a limitation of liability in an insurance policy. The plaintiff was working in a volunteer capacity for the city. While doing so, the plaintiff sustained injuries in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff’s medical expenses were paid through the city’s on-the-job-injury program. The plaintiff had uninsured motorist coverage under his insurance policy with the appellee insurance company.

The appellee insurance company denied the plaintiff’s claim based on language in the policy reducing the insurance company’s liability by sums paid under laws similar to workers’ compensation laws. The insurance company asserted that the city’s on-the-job-injury program was similar to workers’ compensation.

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, and the plaintiff and the insurance company filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, finding that the plaintiff’s benefits under the city’s on-the-job-injury program were similar to workers’ compensation. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm the grant of summary judgment, for the reason stated by the trial court.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gianninip_042712.pdf

Court reviews whether the trial court properly dismissed an uninsured motorist claim

SHAVON HURT v. JOHN DOE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 17, 2012)

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action arising out of a pedestrian-vehicle collision, naming as defendant the owner of the car that allegedly struck the plaintiff. After discovery, plaintiff amended the complaint to add "John Doe/Jane Doe" as a defendant and served process on her uninsured motorist carrier. Plaintiff subsequently settled with the named defendant and dismissed the action against that defendant; the uninsured motorist insurance carrier then filed a motion to dismiss the uninsured motorist claim. The trial court granted the motion, holding that, in light of the settlement, the uninsured motorist claim no longer existed and dismissed the case. We find that the court erred in dismissing the case.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/hurts_011712.pdf

Court reviews whether plaintiff properly alleged his breach of contract, misrepresentation, and TN Consumer Act violation claims

JAMES WATRY v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CAUSALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION (Tenn. Ct. App. December 29, 2011)

Insured was injured by an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. Insured filed a claim with Insurer seeking uninsured motorist coverage benefits and settled for an amount that was less than his actual damages. Insured then sued Insurer seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Act. Insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which the trial court granted. We affirm the trial court's judgment because Insured failed to allege sufficient facts to support any of his causes of action.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/watry_122911.pdf

Court reviews a claim for uninsured motorist benefits

REYNALDO COLLAZO ET AL. v. JOE HAAS D/B/A HAAS CONSTRUCTION ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 16, 2011)

This is an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits following a motor vehicle collision involving the plaintiff and another vehicle. The driver of the defendant vehicle left the scene and has not been identified. The owner of the vehicle was subsequently identified, but denied knowing the identity of the driver and claimed no one had permission to operate the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The named defendants in this action are the owner of the vehicle and John Doe, the unknown driver. Plaintiffs' uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance Co., is an unnamed defendant. The defendant owner has liability insurance coverage through State Farm Insurance Co.

The plaintiffs settled all claims against the defendant-owner and State Farm for $90,000, $10,000 less than the uninsured motorist limits with Nationwide. Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued to pursue their claims against Nationwide for uninsured motorist benefits, insisting the settlement with the owner of the vehicle did not bar their claims against the uninsured John Doe driver. Upon motion for summary judgment by Nationwide, the trial court found that because the owner of the vehicle had $100,000 of liability insurance, there was not an "uninsured motor vehicle." Based on this finding, the trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs' uninsured motorist claim against Nationwide. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/collazor_121611.pdf

Court reviews the application of an offset provision in an uninsured motorist policy

BECKY COOPER v. JASON POWERS ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 29, 2011)

At its core, this case is about the application of an offset provision in an uninsured motorist ("UM") policy to an individual's claim for damages arising out of an automobile accident in the course and scope of her employment.

The plaintiff Becky Cooper's workers' compensation claim arising out of the accident, along with another workers' compensation claim, this one for injuries sustained by the plaintiff "while getting a briefcase from her car," were settled and approved by the Chancery Court for Hamilton County. The "final order" of that court recites that the court acted upon the "joint petition of the employer, ... the insurer, ... and the employee, ...for the approval of a proposed settlement under the ...Workers' Compensation [Law]." The order does not expressly state that the plaintiff was paid any benefits for the injuries sustained in the automobile accident; but it does recite that she received all of the benefits to which she was due with respect to the two claims.

The plaintiff filed the present action against the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident and served a copy of the complaint on Pacific Employers Insurance Company, the UM carrier of the company whose automobile the plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident. The UM carrier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that it is entitled to an offset corresponding to the workers' compensation benefits to which the plaintiff was entitled under the Workers' Compensation Law with respect to the automobile accident.

The trial court granted the UM carrier partial summary judgment in an order that states simply, without further elaboration, "[t]his is a final order." For several reasons, we hold that the court's order is not a final order under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. However, in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, see Tenn. R. App. P. 1, we exercise our discretion to treat this appeal as if it were before us pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 9. With respect to the merits of this case, we affirm the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cooperb_112911.pdf

FRANKS dissenting:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cooper_DIS_112911.pdf

Court reviews a claim against an uninsured motorist carrier.

ALAN HOWARD PETERS ET AL. v. CASEY BURGESS ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 24, 2011)

Alan Howard Peters was seriously injured when his vehicle collided with logs that had rolled off a truck. He and his wife filed this personal injury action and thereafter settled their claims against the defendant tortfeasors for policy limits of $1 million. In doing so, they reserved their claim against the uninsured motorist ("UM") carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company ("CIC").

The UM provisions in effect with CIC were set forth in an endorsement to a 2005 renewal of an umbrella policy. The UM endorsement to the original policy issued in 1999 and to the first renewal issued in 2002 expressly limited UM coverage to $1 million. A space in the 2005 renewal endorsement form that was intended for insertion of the UM policy limits was left blank, which, by default, rendered the limits of the UM endorsement equal to the $2 million liability limits of the umbrella policy. After the dismissal of the claims against the tortfeasors, CIC amended its answer to include a counterclaim asking the court to reform the policy to make the UM limits equal to the $1 million limits of the previous policies. The trial court entered an order reforming the policy. Subsequently the court entered an order dismissing the remaining claim against CIC. Mr. and Mrs. Peters appeal. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/petersa_102411.pdf

Court reviews dismissal of a wrongful death action in an insurance liability case.

MARY F. LAWSON v. BRAD LAWSON (Tenn. Ct. App. September 30, 2010)

Uninsured motorist carrier voluntarily tendered the limits of its liability coverage into the probate proceeding administering the decedent's estate and not in the wrongful death tort action. The trial court dismissed the carrier from this wrongful death tort action since it had tendered its limits of liability. We find the dismissal was in error since any voluntary tender of insurance proceeds for wrongful death should be made into the wrongful death tort case, and tendering the limits elsewhere is not grounds for dismissal.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/lawsonm_093010.pdf

Court Reviews Insurance Coverage in a Case Involving an Uninsured Motorist

FLOYD L. FLETCHER, ET AL. v. ASHLEY R. WHITE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. September 22, 2010)

Mr. Fletcher, who was injured in an automobile accident involving an uninsured motorist, sued the insurance company after it denied uninsured motorist benefits under his towing policy. Insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the towing policy did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for Mr. Fletcher's accident because it involved a non-covered auto. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company. Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher appeal. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/fletcherf_092210.pdf