Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-304 (2026)
Applicability of the part
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) This part governs an agreement to arbitrate made on or after July 1, 2023.
- (b) This part governs an agreement to arbitrate made before July 1, 2023, if all the parties to the agreement or to the arbitration proceeding so agree in a record.
- (c) On or after July 1, 2023, this part governs an agreement to arbitrate whenever made.
Added by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 319, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Owens v. Nat'l Health Corp., 263 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2008).
Owens v. Nat'l Health Corp., 263 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2008). “§ 5 (1999); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-304 (2000). The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's argument and agreed with the defendants' *886 position, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-5-304.”
Akilah Louise Wofford v. M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home Inc., 490 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-304 , -305. Thus, we must conclude that the failure to include these terms is not per se fatal to the enforceability of the arbitration clause.”
Berkeley Rsch. Grp., LLC v. S. Advanced Materials, LLC (Tenn. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-304 (a)–(b) (2024).”
Pediatrix Med. Grp. of Tennessee, P.C. v. Victor J. Thomas, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “However, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-304 provides an exception to Section 313.”
Urology Assocs. v. Cigna Healthcare (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 5 ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-304 . Urology Associates, however, argues that giving the parties the option to choose a “dispute resolution entity” instead of a “single arbitrator” undermines CIGNA’s claim that arbitration under the provision is mandatory.”
George Ernest Diggs v. David Lingo (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “While T.C.A. § 29-5-304 does provide some guidance to a court, it does not address the questions presented here concerning the number of arbitrators, how the arbitrators are to be chosen and what represents an agreement or the lack of an agreement among the arbitrators.”
Bridgett Hill v. NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “In Owens, the Supreme Court rejected that argument on the basis that Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-5-304 provides that when an agreed-upon arbitrator is unavailable, the court may appoint an arbitrator.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.