Legal Opinion

Tallent v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1990PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HARBISON, Justice.

This case presents the issue of whether the tender of a worthless check for an insurance renewal premium constitutes payment so as to keep the policy of insurance in force. Under the circumstances of this case we hold that the dishonored check did not constitute payment and was not effective to renew the coverage.

There is no dispute as to the material facts. Following a bench trial, the chancellor allowed recovery upon the theory that the insured did not have an opportunity to cover the check after it was dishonored. The Court of Appeals rejected this theory but held…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hayworth v. Philadelphia Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Hare v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. of HartfordWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Cullotta v. Kemper Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Sizemore v. E. T. Barwick Industries, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Smith v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. City of Brentwood v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning AppealsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
  2. Thompson v. American General Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2005
  3. EZ Cash 1, LLC v. Brigance (In Re Brigance)District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1999
  4. Walters Auto Body Shop, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Ancro Finance v. Consumers Ins.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998

3 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