Legal Opinion

Carr v. Ford

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1992PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DAUGHTREY, Justice.

This appeal requires us to interpret an amended portion of Tennessee’s Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage Statute. The question is whether injured motorists may recover punitive damages under uninsured motorist coverage, in the absence of an explicit agreement that such coverage will be provided under the policy. We answer this question in the negative and hold that the 1986 amendment to the statute limits requisite uninsured motorist- coverage to compensatory damages. Unless there is a specific contractual clause providing for punitive damages, insureds may not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Austin v. Memphis Publishing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Mullins v. MillerTennessee Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Southern Railway Company v. FowlerTennessee Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Crismon v. CurtissTennessee Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LPTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Carter v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Lawrence County Education Ass'n v. Lawrence County Board of EducationTennessee Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Omni Insurance v. ForemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  5. Storey v. Bradford Furniture Co., Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1995

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API