Liberty Mut. v. Friendship

6 Citing cases

  1. Cook's Roofing, Inc. v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.

    No. W2019-00271-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 20, 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Rejecting argument that the trial court should have awarded interest at the "market rate" of six percent and affirming application of a rate of one percent

    We note that other cases involving similar policies have also discussed post-cancellation audits. See, e.g., Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Theraco, Inc., 437 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014); Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3064650, at *6; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC, No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 736659, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009); CNA (Cont'l Cas.) v. King, No. M2004-02911-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2792159, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2006). The trial court made lengthy findings in its order but did not mention anything about the lack of a post-cancellation audit for the 2006-2007 policy.

  2. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

    No. E2018-01319-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2019)

    This was not the procedural status in the case at bar when Ms. King had filed a responsive pleading and agreed to the Stipulated Exhibit prior to trial. Third, Dr. McLaughlin relies on this Court's decision in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Friendship Home Health Agency, No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 736659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009), for the proposition that Rule 8.03 does apply to sworn account actions. In Liberty Mutual, this Court affirmed the trial court's money judgment in favor of the plaintiff insurance company on a sworn account action against the defendant corporation.

  3. Cent. Bank v. Wilkes

    No. W2015-02079-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2016)

    R.J. Betterton Management Services, Inc., 733 S.W.2d at 882 (quoting 1 C.J. Accord and Satisfaction ยงยง 1 and 16 (1914)). "The party asserting accord and satisfaction as a defense bears the burden of showing 'by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties intended to [a]ffect a satisfaction.'" Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC, No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 736659, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 19, 2009) (quoting Pinney v. Tarpley, 686 S.W.2d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). At trial, Appellee testified that he

  4. Pendergrass v. Ingram

    No. E2015-01990-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    "The party asserting accord and satisfaction as a defense bears the burden of showing 'by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties intended to [a]ffect a satisfaction.'" Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC, No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 736659 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 19, 2009) (quoting Pinney v. Tarpley, 686 S.W.2d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). Appellees argue that they had no intention of accepting Appellant's payment as an accord and satisfaction for the disputed amount of the work they performed, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they marked through the "pd in full" notation before depositing the cashier's check.

  5. Catulan v. Welchez

    No. M2010-01368-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2011)

    Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Tenn. 1977); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC, No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 736659, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009). The trial court's ruling on the motion "will not be disturbed unless the record clearly shows abuse of discretion and prejudice to the party seeking a continuance."

  6. CRUZEN v. AWAD

    No. M2009-00632-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2010)

    In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for continuance, "we must consider (1) whether the decision has a sufficient evidentiary foundation; (2) whether the trial court correctly identified and properly applied the appropriate legal principles; and (3) whether the decision is within the range of acceptable alternatives." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Friendship Home Health Agency,LLC, No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 736659, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009); see alsoComm'r of Dep't of Transp. v. Hall, 635 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tenn. 1982) ("[I]n order to show an abuse of discretion, the plaintiff must show some prejudice or surprise which arises from the trial court's failure to grant the continuance.").