Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-107 (2026)
Financial information from contractor - Insurance requirements - Sovereign immunity
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, no contract for correctional services as defined in § 41-24-102(2)(F), shall be entered into unless the following requirements are met:
- (1) The contractor provides audited financial statements for the previous five (5) years or for each of the years the contractor has been in operation, if fewer than five (5) years, and provides other financial information as requested; and
- (2) The contractor provides an adequate plan of insurance, specifically including insurance for civil rights claims, as determined by an independent risk management or actuarial firm with demonstrated experience in public liability for state governments. The firm shall be selected by the commissioner of commerce and insurance with the concurrence of the board of claims. In determining the adequacy of the plan, the firm shall determine whether:
- (A) The insurance is adequate to protect the state from any and all actions by a third party against the contractor or the state as a result of the contract;
- (B) The insurance is adequate to protect the state against any and all claims arising as a result of any occurrence during the term of the contract; that is, the insurance is adequate on an occurrence basis, not on a claims-made basis;
- (C) The insurance is adequate to assure the contractor's ability to fulfill its contract with the state in all respects and to assure that the contractor is not limited in this ability because of financial liability that results from judgments; and
- (D) The insurance is adequate to satisfy such other requirements specified by the independent risk management or actuarial firm.
- (b) The sovereign immunity of the state shall not apply to the contractor. Neither the contractor nor the insurer of the contractor may plead the defense of sovereign immunity in any action arising out of the performance of the contract.
Acts 1986, ch. 932, § 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2000–2006 · leading case: Younger v. State, 205 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Younger v. State, 205 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The Martin Court noted that, under the Private Prison Contract Act of 1986 (as codified at T.C.A. § 41-24-107(b)), the sovereign immunity of the State does not apply to private contractors, such as the CCA.”
Joe Martin v. State, No. M1999-01642-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2000). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-107 (b). By creation of the Claims Commission, the legislature waived the State’s sovereign immunity up to specified limits and only in specific circumstances for the purpose of providing immunity to employees of the State.”
Wilson v. So. Centr. Corr. Facility Disciplinary Bd, No. M2000-00303-COA-RM-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2000). “§ 41-24-107(b), and he argues that by affirming the dismissal of the members of the disciplinary board, we would -6- be extending a form of de facto immunity to their acts, in contravention of the legislative intention.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-107(a)(2): 1 case
Joe Martin v. State, No. M1999-01642-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2000). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-107 (b). By creation of the Claims Commission, the legislature waived the State’s sovereign immunity up to specified limits and only in specific circumstances for the purpose of providing immunity to employees of the State.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-107(b): 2 cases
Younger v. State, 205 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The Martin Court noted that, under the Private Prison Contract Act of 1986 (as codified at T.C.A. § 41-24-107(b)), the sovereign immunity of the State does not apply to private contractors, such as the CCA.”
Wilson v. So. Centr. Corr. Facility Disciplinary Bd, No. M2000-00303-COA-RM-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2000). “§ 41-24-107(b), and he argues that by affirming the dismissal of the members of the disciplinary board, we would -6- be extending a form of de facto immunity to their acts, in contravention of the legislative intention.”
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.