Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 (2026)
Real estate improvement contracts - Certain venue provisions prohibited
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a provision in any contract, subcontract or purchase order for the improvement of real property in this state is void and against public policy if it makes the contract, subcontract or purchase order subject to the substantive laws of another state or mandates that the exclusive forum for any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process is located in another state.
- (b) The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to any contract, subcontract or purchase order for the improvement of real property which is located partially in this state and partially in another state or states. Venue in a dispute over such contract may be in any state in which part of the property is located.
Acts 1993, ch. 37, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Sam Knaffel v. Horne-Lanesborough, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Sam Knaffel v. Horne-Lanesborough, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “0 Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to alter or amend judgment or for a new trial, citing to the Court Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 . The Chancellor then entered an Order withdrawing the previous Order, and denying both motions of Defendant.”
Los Pumas Concrete v. Harmony Hosp., LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “Moreover, Tennessee Code Annotated section 66-11-208 provides: -5- argues that the change orders and invoices were unauthorized because the invoices either contained the signature of an unauthorized representative of Omni or were submitted by Los Pumas after Omni had already…”
Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P. (W.D. Tenn. 2025). “73 at PageID 6405 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 (a)).) In response, Helen of Troy argues that its agreements with Dematic “are not construction contracts; they are contracts for goods, services, and software.”
Tipton Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Instruction v. Delashmit Elec. Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 (a). The contract between the Board and Delashmit does not contain a forum selection clause.”
in Re MVP Terminalling, LLC (Tex. App. 2022). “73 § 514; Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 (a); Va. Code Ann.”
Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P. (W.D. Tex. 2025). “73 at PageID 6405 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 (a)).) In response, Helen of Troy argues that its agreements with Dematic “are not construction contracts; they are contracts for goods, services, and software.”
Theo Kampert v. Valley Farmers Coop. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-11-208 deals with the proper venue for some disputes over contracts for the improvement of real property.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208(a) — 1 case
Tipton Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Instruction v. Delashmit Elec. Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-208 (a). The contract between the Board and Delashmit does not contain a forum selection clause.”
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.