Skip to main content

Gregory J. Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company

Tenn.April 15, 2019No. M2017-02546-SC-R23-CVCited 23 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Roger, Bivins, Clark, Lee, Kirby
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that an insurer may not withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when calculating actual cash value under the insurance policies at issue, construing ambiguous policy language in favor of the insured homeowners.

Excerpt

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has submitted a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23 regarding the interpretation of two insurance policies: "Under Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as 'the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,' or (2) states that 'actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?"' Based on Tennessee law regarding the interpretation of insurance contracts, we conclude that the language in the policies is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured parties. Therefore, we answer the district court's question in the negative: The insurer may not withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Gregory Lammert had a dispute with Auto-Owners Insurance Company over how his insurance claim was calculated. When Lammert's property was damaged, the insurance company calculated what's called "actual cash value" - basically, how much money they would pay him for repairs. The company reduced the payout by taking away money for "depreciation" on labor costs, meaning they paid less because they said the work wasn't worth full price due to wear and tear over time. **The Court's Decision** The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lammert. The court said that insurance companies cannot subtract depreciation from labor costs when calculating actual cash value payments. The court found that the insurance policy language was unclear (ambiguous), and when policy language is unclear, it must be interpreted in favor of the policyholder, not the insurance company. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects workers who have insurance policies by ensuring they receive fuller compensation for legitimate claims. When insurance companies try to reduce payouts through confusing policy language, courts will side with policyholders. This decision also reinforces that insurance companies must be clear about what they will and won't cover, preventing them from using vague language to avoid paying valid claims.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.