Stooksbury v. Amer. Nat

36 Citing cases

  1. Ginn v. American Heritage Life Insurance Co.

    173 S.W.3d 433 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that allegation that insurer did not have a physician review medical records prior to denying insured's claim does not "remotely state a cause of action under the TCPA"

    We first address Defendants' claims that the Trial Court erred in not directing a verdict in their favor on the breach of contract claim. As this Court recently explained in Stooksbury v. American Nat. Prop. and Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003): In deciding whether a trial court was correct in granting or denying a motion for directed verdict, an appellate court cannot weigh the evidence.

  2. HEIL COMPANY v. EVANSTON INSURANCE CO

    Case No: 1:05-cv-284 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    This section is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Stooksbury v. American Nat. Property and Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 518-519 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003) (citing Minton v. Tennessee FarmersMut. Ins. Co., 832 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992)). In order to recover bad faith penalties under this statute, a claimant must prove: (1) the policy of insurance must, by its terms, have become due and payable, (2) a formal demand for payment must have been made, (3) the insured must have waited 60 days after making demand before filing suit (unless there was a refusal to pay prior to the expiration of the 60 days), and (4) the refusal to pay must not have been in good faith.

  3. Zientek v. State Farm International Services Inc.

    No. 1:05-CV-326 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 10, 2006)   Cited 6 times

    This section is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Stooksbury v. American Nat. Property and Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 518-519 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003) (citing Minton v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 832 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992)). In order to recover bad faith penalties under this statute, a claimant must prove: (1) the policy of insurance must, by its terms, have become due and payable, (2) a formal demand for payment must have been made, (3) the insured must have waited 60 days after making demand before filing suit (unless there was a refusal to pay prior to the expiration of the 60 days), and (4) the refusal to pay must not have been in good faith.

  4. Blurton v. Grange Ins. Cas. Co.

    159 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Finding denial of coverage was lawful where insured did not pay premium

    Such proof was not required by the contract, nor is it required under Tennessee law. See Stooksbury v. Am. Nat. Prop. Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 516-17 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003) (recognizing that Tennessee law does not require that cancellation notices be sent via certified mail, and stating that such a requirement "is a matter better left to the Tennessee Legislature as opposed to the court system"). Moreover, Grange notes, it is not necessary that the Blurtons have actually received the notice of cancellation in order for it to be effective.

  5. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. GCC Constr.

    714 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (E.D. Tenn. 2024)

    The statute is "penal in nature and must be strictly construed." Stooksbury v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Palmer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 723 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). "Whether an insurer acted in good faith is generally a fact question for the trier of fact."

  6. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. GCC Constr.

    711 F. Supp. 3d 899 (E.D. Tenn. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The statute is "penal in nature and must be strictly construed." Stooksbury v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Palmer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 723 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). "Whether an insurer acted in good faith is generally a fact question for the trier of fact." Giles v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 643 S.W.3d 171, 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).

  7. Roberson v. Motion Indus., Inc.

    No. E2004-02310-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 7, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Our standard of review is whether there is any material evidence in the record to support the Trial Court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict. See Stooksbury v. American Nat. Prop. and Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003). One of the many issues in Stooksbury was whether the trial court erred when it failed to direct a verdict in the defendant's favor.

  8. BC N. Partners v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.

    1:24-cv-01114-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 22, 2024)

    Bowery v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1497339, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2013) (citing Stooksbury v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)).

  9. Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank

    21-cv-2558-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn. May. 3, 2022)

    The purpose of the TCPA is “to protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts and practices.” Stooksbury v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Fifty-two specific “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” are listed therein.

  10. Bethel Chapel AME Church, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co.

    NO. 1:19-cv-00016 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 14, 2020)

    To establish a claim for bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-105, a plaintiff must show: (1) the policy of insurance must have become due and payable; (2) a formal demand for payment was made; (3) the insured waited 60 days after making demand before filing suit or there was refusal to pay prior to the expiration of the 60 days; and (4) the refusal to pay must not have been in good faith. Bowery v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-03, 2013 WL 1497339, at * 9 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2013) (citing Stooksbury v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 505, 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). "To discharge its duty to act in good faith, an insurer must exercise ordinary care and diligence in investigating the claim and the extent of damage for which the insured may be held liable."