Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
MFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flintgreen2 sentences1987As is pointed out in MFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flint, 574 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Tenn.1978), an insurer has the duty to deal with its insured “fairly and in good faith.” This includes informing an insured as to coverage and policy requirements when (1) it is apparent to the insurer that there is a strong likelihood that its insured only can be compensated fully under her own policy and (2) that the insured has no basis to believe that she must rely upon her policy for coverage. 1980MFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flint, 574 S.W.2d 718 (Tenn.1978). | 1 | 2 |
Win Myint and wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2026Id. at 491 ; see also Myint, 970 S.W.2d at 922–23 (where an insurer’s refusal to pay under the insurance policy gave rise to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract action). | 1 | 1 |
State Auto. Ins. Co. of Columbus, Ohio v. Rowlandgreen1 sentence2016Co. of Columbus, Ohio v. Rowland, 427 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Tenn. 1968) (“In return for the insurance company’s agreement to cover losses occasioned by the negligent acts of the insured, the insured must surrender his right to control the defense of claims brought against him.”) 10 preserve the right to seek additional compensation from the insured’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier upon agreement of the insured or the insured’s personal representative to submit the insured’s uninsured motorist claim to binding arbitration of all issues of tort liability and damages, provided: (1)(A) The offer mu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schleif v. Hardware Dealer's Mutual Fire Insurance
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 491 ; see also Myint, 970 S.W.2d at 922–23 (where an insurer’s refusal to pay under the insurance policy gave rise to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract action). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia v. Oelke
green
2 sentences1995The distinction was noted in a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court and discussed by Professor Larson: The Georgia Supreme Court, in reversing [Board of Regents v. Oelke, 120 Ga. App. 667 , 172 S.E.2d 183 (Ga.Ct.App.1969), rav’d, 226 Ga. 310 , 174 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. 1970) ], cut through all these distinctions and arguments and rested its decision squarely on the proposition that the proceeds of an uninsured motorist clause are the fruits of a contractual obligation between the insurer and the insured employee, whereas the liability of a third party covered by the subrogation section of the compe 1995The distinction was noted in a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court and discussed by Professor Larson: The Georgia Supreme Court, in reversing [Board of Regents v. Oelke, 120 Ga. App. 667 , 172 S.E.2d 183 (Ga.Ct.App.1969), rav’d, 226 Ga. 310 , 174 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. 1970) ], cut through all these distinctions and arguments and rested its decision squarely on the proposition that the proceeds of an uninsured motorist clause are the fruits of a contractual obligation between the insurer and the insured employee, whereas the liability of a third party covered by the subrogation section of the compe | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
green
2 sentences1995The distinction was noted in a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court and discussed by Professor Larson: The Georgia Supreme Court, in reversing [Board of Regents v. Oelke, 120 Ga. App. 667 , 172 S.E.2d 183 (Ga.Ct.App.1969), rav’d, 226 Ga. 310 , 174 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. 1970) ], cut through all these distinctions and arguments and rested its decision squarely on the proposition that the proceeds of an uninsured motorist clause are the fruits of a contractual obligation between the insurer and the insured employee, whereas the liability of a third party covered by the subrogation section of the compe 1995The distinction was noted in a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court and discussed by Professor Larson: The Georgia Supreme Court, in reversing [Board of Regents v. Oelke, 120 Ga. App. 667 , 172 S.E.2d 183 (Ga.Ct.App.1969), rav’d, 226 Ga. 310 , 174 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. 1970) ], cut through all these distinctions and arguments and rested its decision squarely on the proposition that the proceeds of an uninsured motorist clause are the fruits of a contractual obligation between the insurer and the insured employee, whereas the liability of a third party covered by the subrogation section of the compe | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Glover v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1976The Court said: “This code section invalidates insurance contract provisions for arbitration of uninsured motorist claims, and sets out the course of procedure whereby an insured can reduce an uninsured motorist claim to judgment.” 225 Tenn. at 309 , 468 S.W.2d at 728 . 1976The Court said: “This code section invalidates insurance contract provisions for arbitration of uninsured motorist claims, and sets out the course of procedure whereby an insured can reduce an uninsured motorist claim to judgment.” 225 Tenn. at 309 , 468 S.W.2d at 728 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.