Court reviews whether a child was a resident of a household for the purposes of insurance liability

COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAMI McNAIR TUCK, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 9, 2012)

An insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that mother and child were residents of the insured’s household, and therefore, that coverage for the death of the child was excluded by the relevant homeowner’s insurance policy. The chancery court found that mother and child were not residents of the insured’s household at the time of the child’s death, and we affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cottonstates_110912.pdf

Court Rules for Insured After Agent's Mistake

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled today that an insurance company must provide vehicle liability insurance coverage to the insured as he requested from his insurance company’s agent but did not receive because of a mistake by the agent. Learn more from the Administrative Office of the Court about Allstate Insurance Company v. Diana Lynn Tarrant and read the dissenting opinion from Justice William Koch and Chief Justice Cornelia Clark.

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

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

Court Reviews Whether Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss was Properly Granted in an Automobile Accident Case

SHEILA BROWN v. RICO ROLAND (Tenn. Ct. App. September 24, 2010)

The matters at issue pertain to the rights and responsibilities of the parties under the underinsured motorist provisions of Plaintiff's automobile insurance. Plaintiff, who was involved in a vehicular accident with another motorist, commenced this personal injury action to recover an amount "under $25,000." The only named defendant is the tortfeasor, however, State Farm is an unnamed party. This is due to the fact that Plaintiff served timely and proper notice on State Farm of the commencement of this action and that she was asserting an underinsured coverage claim pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1206.

Plaintiff subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the tortfeasor for the tortfeasor's policy limits of $25,000, at which time she properly served notice on State Farm of the proposed settlement and her willingness to enter into binding arbitration with State Farm to settle her claim for underinsured motorist benefits.

Thereafter, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the underinsured claim against it claiming Plaintiff was made whole when she agreed to a settlement with the tortfeasor in an amount in excess of her ad damnum and therefore there was no claim to arbitrate. The court granted the motion to dismiss and Plaintiff appealed.

We have determined the trial court did not err in granting State Farm's motion to dismiss the claim against it because Plaintiff sought to recover a judgment in an amount under $25,000 from the tortfeasor and/or State Farm, and Plaintiff settled her claim against the tortfeasor for an amount in excess of the ad damnum. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of State Farm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/browns_092410.pdf