Skip to main content

Talat Parveen v. ACG South Insurance Agency, LLC

Tenn. Ct. App.November 5, 2019No. E2018-01759-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge D. Michael Swiney
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This appeal arises from an action commenced by two insured parties against their insurance agent and the insurance agency where he was employed after the insureds' insurance carrier refused to provide excess uninsured motorist coverage because it was not included in the insureds' policy. The insureds alleged that their insurance agent failed to procure the requested insurance on their behalf and that they consequently had suffered monetary losses. The Trial Court applied a statutory rebuttable presumption that the insureds had accepted the provided coverage by paying their insurance premiums, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-135(b). Upon its finding that the insureds had not rebutted that presumption, the Trial Court dismissed the insureds' action. The insureds have appealed. Upon our determination that Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7- 135(b) does not apply to actions against an insurance agent for failure to procure insurance coverage as directed, we reverse the Trial Court's grant of summary judgment and remand for the action to proceed.

What This Ruling Means

**Parveen v. ACG South Insurance Agency: Insurance Dispute Involving Employee Responsibility** This case involved two insurance customers who sued their insurance agent and the agency where he worked. The customers claimed their agent failed to get them the specific type of car insurance coverage they had requested - excess uninsured motorist coverage. When they needed this coverage later, their insurance company refused to pay because it wasn't actually included in their policy. The customers argued the agent's mistake cost them money and sued both the individual agent and his employer, ACG South Insurance Agency. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, meaning the legal dispute wasn't fully resolved. The court needed to reconsider certain legal issues before making a final decision. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights an important workplace reality - employees can face personal liability for mistakes made while doing their jobs, even when working for a company. Insurance agents, like many other professionals, can be held personally responsible alongside their employers when clients suffer losses due to errors or failures to follow instructions. Workers in client-facing roles should understand they may face individual lawsuits for professional mistakes, making attention to detail and proper documentation crucial for protection.

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

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.