Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Prompt Pay Act of 1991."

Acts 1991, ch. 45, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC, 514 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC, 514 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “One year later, Beacon4 filed a complaint alleging that I & L had violated the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 to -602, and breached the parties’ site contract.”
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “TRinity’s Attorneys’ Fees Under Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-34-101 Trinity sought to recover its attorney’s fees under the “Prompt Pay Act of 1991”, Tenn.”
Madden Phillips Constr., Inc. v. GGAT Dev. Corp., 315 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “1 Madden Phillips’ complaint included a claim for damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 66-34-101 to -703, also known as the Prompt Pay Act of 1991 (“Prompt Pay Act”).”
Summit Contracting Grp., Inc. v. Ashland Heights, LP, 187 F. Supp. 3d 893 (M.D. Tenn. 2016). · cites it 3× “The Federal Court Contract Action is premised upon (1) the common law elements of breach of contract and (2) Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101 et seq. (Tennessee’s Retainage Laws).”
Aarene Contracting, LLC v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “E2016-01155-COA-R3-CV-FILED-DECEMBER 20, 2016 ___________________________________ A contractor sued an owner for violations of the Prompt Pay Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 et seq., and notified the owner of its violations by Federal Express and e- mail.”
Classic City Mech., Inc. v. Potter South East, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101 , et seq. The May 14 letter, which was also sent to TDOT via certified mail, further indicated that Classic City would cease working on the project if appropriate payment was not forwarded to it.”
Claiborne Hauling, LLC v. Wisteria Park, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Please be advised that Wisteria Park’s failure to make payment is in violation of the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101 , et seq. Unless you make payment or provide us a response giving adequate legal reasons for your failure to make payment within ten (10)…”
E Solutions For Bldgs., LLC v. Knestrick Contractor, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “We address this matter not only in connection with Air Comfort’s breach of contract claim, but also with respect to Air Comfort’s request for relief pursuant to the Prompt Pay Act, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101 et seq. Of considerable importance to the discussion is…”
Clarksville Towers, LLC v. John Straussberger (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” Although no legal basis was set forth in the motion, in its accompanying memorandum of law, Clarksville Towers explained that it based its motion on its interpretation of the “Tennessee Trust Fund Statute,” codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-11-138; the Prompt Pay Act…”
E Solutions For Bldgs., LLC v. Knestrick Contractors, Inc. (2021). · cites it 2× “53 under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 to -704, and “[a]dditional charges.”
Com. Painting Co., Inc. v. The Weitz Co., LLC (Tenn. 2023). · cites it 2× “5 Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 to -704. 6 The extension agreement negotiated by Weitz and the project owner included a bonus to Weitz of $8,597 for each day, up to forty-five days, that the project was completed early.”
Munson Hardisty, LLC v. Legacy Pointe Apts., LLC (TV2) (E.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 3730 (h); (2) breach of contract; (3) quantum meruit; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 et seq.; (6) constructive trust; (7) lien lis pendens; and (8) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations…”
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.