December 17, 2009 by Zale.

Since I was an insurance adjuster for over a decade, I enjoy dealing with insurance related disputes.  They don’t come up all the time, but when they do, they can be very stressful for the client.

Here is a recent Tennessee case dealing with such a dispute.  This appears to be what’s known as a “construction defect” claim where the insurer denied coverage.  I handled a few of these.  They’re pretty complex.

In this scenario, the proper way to get the court to determine coverage is known as a Declaratory Judgment Action.  In this case, the plaintiffs made other claims like “bad faith”, “Tennessee Consumer Protection Act” and that sort of thing, but for me, the heart of this case is that the court DID GIVE THEM INSURANCE COVERAGE at the end of the day.

Posted in Litigation, Insurance Practices, Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »

August 31, 2009 by Zale.

Tennessee is typically a pretty conservative state when it comes to people being injured on the premises of a business.  However, the case law in Tennessee does not let a business owner completely escape liability for the bad acts of an individual on the business property.  If it can be proven that the business had some culpability for the acts of that person, even if those acts are criminal, then the business can be held liable for the acts of that person.

Recently a plaintiff won $10 Million, yes Million, against Ruby Tuesday.  What did Ruby Tuesday do wrong?  It sold alcohol to an already intoxicated person, who then beat the stew out of the customer / plaintiff.  Wow!  That makes one wonder if Tennessee is as conservative at the insurance defense bar once thought it was.

Posted in Litigation, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »

August 4, 2009 by Zale.

Tennessee recognizes a duty for business owners, in high crime areas, to take reasonable measures to protect their customers. It make sense right? If a business owner knows there is a lot of crime in their area and continues to invite customers to their business premises, then they should take the appropriate measures to protect those customers (and employees) from the criminal element that abounds in their area. This duty comes from the 1996 Tennessee Supreme Court decision McClung v. Delta Square 937 SW2d 894.

Recently, there was a case where a security company tried to escape liability by alleging that, even though they were hired to supply security for a business, they had no duty to Ms. Maggie Barron, an employee of one of the businesses.

Ms. Barron was abducted by two juveniles from her employer’s parking lot.  This was the parking lot the security company was paid to secure. The delinquents abducted her, threatened to kill her and assaulted her while driving her car around. Their activities ended when they eventually wrecked Ms. Barron’s vehicle. Fortunately, Ms. Barron lived to tell her story.

Ms. Barron sued several folks, including the security company. The security company filed a motion to allow them to be dismissed from the case. This had to have been an interesting argument for the security company’s attorney to make. Let’s see, “Your Honor, this was clearly not a high crime area, after all, they didn’t kill her.” Or maybe, “Your Honor, my client is a security company and therefore, clearly had no duty to protect anyone.”

For some reason, the trial court judge bought their argument and let them out of the case.  Ms. Barron, rightly so, was having none of that and she appealed the trial court’s decision. She won, as she should have, based on the McClung case.

What’s this tell us? If your business is in a high crime area, take the appropriate measures to make sure your customers and employees will have a chance to frequent your business again.

Posted in Criminal Law, Injury Law, Business Law | No Comments »

February 27, 2009 by Zale.

You don’t have to read this blog long to know that I am somewhat critical of slip and fall claims.  Why?  Because the courts are highly critical of them.   With that being said, there are valid slip and fall claims, even if they are few and far between.

Take this case for example.  When a business encourages the throwing of peanut shells on the floor as part of their image, they should not be surprised when someone falls on one of the shells.  Furthermore, a jury should get the opportunity to decide whether or not that business should be held liable for the person’s injuries.  Who knows, maybe the jury will see that the person who fell should have been more attentive.  But the case should still be allowed to go to the jury.

In this case, the trial court in Davidson County, Tennessee granted the restaurant Summary Judgment finding that the “restaurant did not owe a duty to patron because the presence of the peanut shells was not a latent or hidden condition and did not create a defective or dangerous condition which presented a foreseeable risk of serious injury.”  Fortunately, the Tennessee Court of Appeals did not agree with the trial court’s decision.

I think the Court of Appeals got this one right.  (I’m sure they can all breathe easier now.) They did not give the plaintiff a “pass” on her case.  She still has to convince a jury that the restaurant is liable for her injuries.  But at least now she will have the chance to present her case to the jury.

Posted in Litigation, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »

October 13, 2008 by Zale.

I’m hoping that this will be a fun activity for all.  I have a pretty good number of subscribers to this blog, but I’ve not gotten many comments.  So, that tells me that I have a good number of passive readers.  Thank you to all.

Here’s where you get to participate.  What’s your question?  Surely you have to have some legal question you would like to  have addressed.  So here’s your chance.  I’ll address the questions in upcoming posts.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Posted in Criminal Law, Litigation, Negotiations, Diminished Value, Injury Law, Insurance Practices, Business Law, Right To Life, Insurance Law, General Law | No Comments »

September 24, 2008 by Zale.

I noticed this recent TN bad faith case.  In short, this is one of those cases where the insured’s property burns down and the insurance company insuring the property calls the fire arson, which is not covered.

Let’s set the stage.  If you have a claim like this, one of the first people out there, other than the property adjuster, is the C & O or Cause and Origin expert.  They are there to try to figure out why this piece building, all of a sudden, decided to increase it’s output of carbon and, consequently, lower its roof line to the ground.  The adjuster is going to have the insured fill out proof of loss statements and that sort of thing.  If the insurance company suspects that the policy holder or insured intentionally set the fire, then the  insured can expect to have to sit for an Examination Under Oath, which is often followed by a denial of coverage.

Well, in this case, the jury found that they believed that the insured had made some misrepresentations as to what they had.  This happens all the time, but the stuff that was misrepresented was no where to be found in the debris. So, the court said “no coverge for you!”

What do we learn from this? Just be honest.  At the end of the day, its only money.  Is your integrity really worth trying to inflate a claim?

Posted in Litigation, Insurance Practices, Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »

September 4, 2008 by Zale.

For those of you who have visited my website in the past, you might notice that it is different.  Instead of trying to focus my practice on Injury, Criminal AND Business Law, I’m now trying to emphasize the Injury portion of my firm.  Why? Because I spent so much time assisting people with their injury claims when I was an adjuster, I want to do that now as an attorney.  Sure, I still take the other cases, but that is not the focus of the firm.

Posted in Criminal Law, Injury Law, Business Law, General Law | 1 Comment »

August 18, 2008 by Zale.

Here’s another recent Tennessee Supreme Court case that is worth noting.  The situation is that employer has someone working for them.  They have them sign a very simple release regarding on the job injuries.   However, it specifically stated “…if I am running business or personal errands…”. Well, there’s was the rub.  Since this person was injured while doing office work and not while running errands, the release did not apply.  I suspect that this release form was not written by an attorney.  Had this release been written by an attorney, the business owner would have stood a much better chance of escaping liability.

Posted in Injury Law, Business Law | No Comments »

June 5, 2008 by Zale.

I was sworn in before the Tennessee Supreme Court on Tuesday.  The firm went “live” yesterday.  I hope that you will contact us to see how we can help you.  The office is based out of White House, Tennessee (Sumner County side), but we cover most of Middle Tennessee and will be happy to make a “house call” if needed.

Posted in Insurance Practices, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Right To Life, Business Law, General Law | No Comments »

May 12, 2008 by Zale.

Some states do not have much respect for the words in an insurance policy.  They consider all of the words as “fine print”.  Fortunately, Tennessee still respects the words in the policy. (Why is that good?  Predictability makes insurance rates cheaper and the law easier to predict.)

Finchum v. Patterson, was released today. This is a Tennessee Court of Appeals case where the heart of the dispute has to do with a theft loss to a show truck. The insurance company denied the loss based on the wording of the policy. There was probably a coverage that Finchum could have purchased to cover this loss, they just failed to do so.

What does this case teach us?

• Make sure  your specialty items are covered, especially when you have a $30,000 show truck.
• Periodically check with your agent as to whether or not there are any other coverages you may consider.
• Don’t assume  that your insurance agent speaks for the actual insurance carrier.
• Understand that you have the responsibility to know what is in your insurance policy.

You can’t cover every loss, but it’s in every business’s best interest to  make sure their risks are covered.

Posted in Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »