Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-8-101 (2026)
Short title - Purpose - Authority of commissioner
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Tennessee Unfair Trade Practices and Unfair Claims Settlement Act of 2009".
- (b) The purpose of this part is to regulate trade and claims settlement practices in the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of congress as expressed in the Act of Congress of March 9, 1945, (Public Law 15, 79th Congress) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102, 106th Congress), by defining, or providing for the determination of, all such practices in this state that constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices and claim settlement practices so defined or determined.
- (c) Notwithstanding any other state law to the contrary, the commissioner shall have sole enforcement authority for this part, and nothing in this part shall be construed to create or imply a private cause of action for a violation of this part.
Acts 2008 , ch. 1079, §§ 1, 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: Win Myint & wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. 1998).
Win Myint & wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. 1998). “The Insurance Trade Practices Act, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 56-8-101 et seq., was passed in 1981 for the purpose of regulating] trade practices in the business of insurance .”
Skinner v. Steele, 730 S.W.2d 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 56-8-101 et seq. Therefore, the defendants claim, the acts or transactions involved were “specifically authorized” by the insurance code as contemplated in the Act.”
Chandler v. Prudential Ins. Co., 715 S.W.2d 615 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “” On the other hand, Prudential contends that the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable for the reason that the allegations as set forth in plaintiff’s, complaint bring it within the purview of T.C.A. § 56-8-101, et seq., entitled “Unfair Competition and Unfair or Deceptive…”
Kansas Bankers Sur. Co. v. Bahr Consultants, Inc., 69 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (E.D. Tenn. 1999). “” T.C.A. § 56-8-101 (emphasis added). The Act farther provides: No person shall engage in this state in any trade practice which is defined in this chapter as, or determined pursuant to § 56-8-108 to be, an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice…”
Finley v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 909 F. Supp. 2d 969 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). “Count II, Fraud and Misrepresentation Under the Tennessee Unfair Trade Practices Act, Is Dismissed Next, Finley alleges that the Defendants committed fraudulent acts and misrepresentations under the Tennessee Unfair Trade Practices and Unfair Claims Settlement Act of 2009,…”
For Senior Help, LLC v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “constitute the tort of bad faith,” they invoked the Insurance Trade Practices Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-8-101 et seq., which does not authorize private causes of action.”
Win Myint & Patti Kay Myint, et. ux. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1998). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-8-101 (1994). Section 56-8-104 specifically lists the acts which constitute unfair competition or deceptive acts, including unfair claim settlement practices.”
Peacock Jewelers, LLC v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co., SI (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “§§ 56-8-101 to -113. Peacock argues that such testimony is necessary to “explain industry standards for the handling of insurance claims.”
Wendy Leverett v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Sections 56-8-101 through 56-8- 111,” and they specifically listed alleged violations of Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-8-101(b) — 1 case
Finley v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 909 F. Supp. 2d 969 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). “Count II, Fraud and Misrepresentation Under the Tennessee Unfair Trade Practices Act, Is Dismissed Next, Finley alleges that the Defendants committed fraudulent acts and misrepresentations under the Tennessee Unfair Trade Practices and Unfair Claims Settlement Act of 2009,…”
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.