Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-9-102 (2026)

Applicability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The proceedings authorized by this chapter may be applied to:

(1) All insurers who are doing, or have done, an insurance business in this state, and against whom claims arising from that business may exist now or in the future;

(2) All insurers who purport to do an insurance business in this state;

(3) All insurers who have insureds resident in this state;

(4) All other persons organized or in the process of organizing with the intent to do an insurance business in this state;

(5) All nonprofit service plans and all fraternal benefit societies and beneficial societies subject to § 56-25-606;

(6) All title insurance companies subject to chapter 35 of this title;

(7) All prepaid health care delivery plans; and

(8) All fidelity, bonding or surety companies under chapter 15 of this title, and all annuity companies who do business in this state.

Acts 1991, ch. 142, § 4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2011 · leading case: Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988). · cites it 2× “” Finally, the test used by most of the similar state and model statutes mentioned above, and set out in the appendix, is inability to satisfy a judgment. It is not, however, necessary in this case to conclusively define “insolvency” for the purpose of the Tennessee Products…”

Bryant v. Shields, Britton & Fraser, 930 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. App. 1996). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-9-102 (l)-(3) (1994).”

Leslie Newman, Comm'r of the Tennessee Dep't of Com. & Ins. v. Smart Data Solutions, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-9-101 (d)(1). The Act authorizes proceedings against the entities specified at Tenn.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-9-102(g) — 1 case

Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988). “” Finally, the test used by most of the similar state and model statutes mentioned above, and set out in the appendix, is inability to satisfy a judgment. It is not, however, necessary in this case to conclusively define “insolvency” for the purpose of the Tennessee Products…”

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.