In Patton v Pearson, No. M2022-00708-COA-RC-CV, 2023 Tenn. App. LEXIS 231, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court erred in dismissing an insurance carrier’s lawsuit against its insured’s tenant for damages sustained in a fire. While the lawsuit was filed in the name of the landlord (i.e., the insured), discovery revealed that the lawsuit was actually a subrogation lawsuit, brought by the landlord’s insurance carrier. The lower court granted the tenant’s motion for summary judgment based on the Sutton Doctrine, holding that the tenant was an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that although the lease agreement did not reference insurance, the Sutton Doctrine applied, which barred the landlord’s carrier from subrogating against the tenant.
In 2016, Anita Pearson (Ms. Pearson) signed a lease agreement to rent a home in Nashville, Tennessee, which was owned by John and Melody Patton (collectively, the Pattons). The lease stated that the Pattons were not responsible for the tenant’s personal property. The lease also stated that the tenant would be responsible for any damage caused by her negligence or misuse of the home. The lease was silent as to which party would maintain property casualty insurance and regarding implied co-insured status on any policy. Ms. Pearson purchased renter’s insurance for her personal property. The Pattons secured a property casualty insurance policy for the home.
In December 2019, a fire occurred at the home. The Pattons reported the claim to their property casualty insurance carrier. The carrier’s investigation revealed that Ms. Pearson caused the fire by negligently using a candle. The Pattons’ carrier paid for the damages caused by the fire. In January 2021, the insurer filed a lawsuit against Ms. Pearson, alleging negligence and seeking $150,000 plus discretionary costs and attorney’s fees. The complaint named only the Pattons as the plaintiffs.
During discovery, Ms. Pearson issued requests for admissions to the Pattons regarding their insurance coverage for the property. The Pattons objected to these requests, arguing that the collateral source rule made the information about insurance coverage inadmissible and non-discoverable. Ms. Pearson filed a motion to compel, which the trial court granted. The Pattons’ responses to the requests for admissions revealed that the lawsuit was actually a subrogation lawsuit brought by the Pattons’ carrier.
After this revelation, Ms. Pearson moved for summary judgment arguing that under Tennessee law, she was an implied co-insured of the Pattons’ policy and the carrier could not subrogate against its own insured. The trial court granted summary judgment. The Pattons filed an appeal, arguing that the Sutton Doctrine did not apply to the subject lease and that the collateral source rule prohibited the court from compelling insurance coverage information because it was inadmissible evidence and, thus, non-discoverable.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Sutton Doctrine was adopted by Tennessee in 2005. The court noted that, in Tennessee, the Sutton Doctrine establishes that “absent a clearly expressed agreement to the contrary, the tenant is presumed to be a co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy, and therefore the landlord’s insurance carrier has no right of subrogation against [a] negligent tenant.” The court reasoned that this approach promotes basic equity and fundamental justice more so than any other possible approach. Since there was nothing in the lease that specifically stated that the tenant was not a co-insured on the landlord’s policy and that the tenant needed liability coverage insurance, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
With respect to the collateral source rule, the court acknowledged that Tennessee law generally prohibits evidence that a plaintiff has received benefits or payments from a collateral source independent of the tortfeasor’s contribution, so as to avoid prejudice. However, the court held that the collateral source rule does not apply when the evidence of insurance is introduced to establish that an insurer is improperly subrogating against a co-insured. The court stated that ruling otherwise would allow a carrier to subrogate against a co-insured by simply filing in the name of the insured and objecting to all discovery regarding insurance coverage.
The Patton case establishes that, under Tennessee law, the Sutton Doctrine prohibits a landlord’s carrier from subrogating against a tenant without an express provision in the lease stating that the tenant is not a co-insured on the policy. This case shows that even if the lease explicitly holds the tenant responsible for damage caused by his/her negligence, a Tennessee tenant will still be considered a co-insured on the landlord’s policy without an express provision otherwise. Furthermore, the Patton decision also tells us that a subrogating carrier cannot avoid the Sutton Doctrine simply by filing in the name of the insured. Subrogation professionals handling matters in Tennessee should be aware of the Patton decision when considering whether subrogating against a tenant is a viable option.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Contracts
- Texas
- Litigation
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Negligence
- Evidence
- Experts – Daubert
- New York
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- Certificate of Merit
- Indemnification
- Experts - Reliability
- California
- Causation
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Condemnation
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- CPSC Warning
- Minnesota
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Uncategorized
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- AIA Contracts
- Product Liability
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Res Judicata
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Arizona
Tags
- Construction Defects
- Texas
- Construction Contracts
- Statute of Limitations
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Product Liability
- Negligence
- Statute of Repose
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- New York
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- New Jersey
- Indemnification
- Certificate of Merit
- Contracts
- Malfunction Theory
- Waiver of Subrogation
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts
- Maryland
- California
- Causation
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Georgia
- Civil Procedure
- Illinois
- Pennsylvania
- Condemnation
- Inverse Condemnation
- Minnesota
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Sutton Doctrine
- Experts – Qualifications
- Arizona
- Florida
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Public Policy
- Rhode Island
- West Virginia
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Indiana
- Expert Qualifications
- Tennessee
- Amazon
- Delaware
- Connecticut
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Design Defect
- Improvement
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Negligence – Duty
- Apportionment
- Privity
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Malpractice
- Warranty - Implied
- Spoliation
- Made Whole
- Settlement
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Michigan
- Comparative Fault
- Water Damage
- Contracts - Formation
- Condominiums
- Non-Party at Fault
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Arbitration
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Res Judicata
- Wisconsin
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Daubert
- Standing
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- AIA Contract
- Betterment
- Damages
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Washington
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- Idaho
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Cargo-Transportation
- MCS-90
- Contribution
- Substantial Completion
Authors
Archives
- July 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022