After Market Crash Parts Regulation
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the use of aftermarket crash parts by requiring disclosure when any use is proposed of an aftermarket, non-original equipment manufacturer's crash part, and by requiring that the manufacturers of such aftermarket crash parts be identified.
(1) "Insurer" includes an insurance company and any person authorized to represent the insurer with respect to a claim.
(2) "Aftermarket crash part" means a replacement for any of the non-mechanical sheet metal or plastic parts which generally constitute the exterior of a motor vehicle, including inner and outer panels.
(3) "Non-original equipment manufacturer (Non-OEM) aftermarket crash part" means aftermarket crash parts not made for or by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle.
Any aftermarket crash part specified by an insurer for use in the repair of an insured's motor vehicle, supplied by a non-original equipment manufacturer for use in this State after the effective date of this regulation shall have affixed thereto or inscribed thereon the logo or name of its manufacturer. Such manufacturer's logo or name shall be visible after installation whenever practicable.
(1) No insurer shall specify directly or indirectly the use of non-OEM aftermarket crash parts in the repair of an insured's motor vehicle without disclosing the intended use of such parts to the insured. In all instances where non-OEM aftermarket crash parts are intended for use by an insurer:
(a) the written estimate shall clearly identify each such part.
(b) a disclosure document containing the following information in no smaller print than 10 point type or larger type shall appear on or be attached to the insured's copy of the estimate: "This estimate has been prepared based on the use of one or more crash parts supplied by a source other than the manufacturer of your motor vehicle. Warranties applicable to these replacement parts are provided by the parts manufacturer or distributor rather than by the manufacturer of your vehicle."
(2) Non-OEM after market crash parts shall not be used on current year model or immediate prior year model motor vehicle without the permission of the insured.
Violations of this regulation shall be enforced through the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, T.C.A. §56-8-104(8), as provided in T.C.A. §§56-8-107 through 56-8-112.
If any section or portion of a section of this regulation or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid by a court, the remainder of this regulation, or the applicability of such provision with a person shall not be affected thereby.
October, 1999 (Revised)
Automobile Assigned Risk Plan (AIPSO)
Website for commercial automobile liability and private passenger automobile liability and physical damage.
You must have user ID and password. Very good web site with rules, rates and instructions.
JLA Law: Proof of Insurance
New Tennessee Auto Insurance Law Misunderstood
In 2015 the Tennessee General Assembly passed the “James Lee Atwood Jr” (JLA) law with the purpose of developing and implementing an efficient insurance verification program utilizing an online verification system. The verification database will go online Tuesday, January 3, 2017. The goal of the new law is to reduce the number of uninsured motorists in Tennessee.
However, the new law does NOT require proof of financial responsibility (proof of insurance or POI) prior to registering your vehicle beginning January 1 as some news outlets have reported. Tennessee drivers have always been required to carry insurance, and to have POI if stopped for a moving violation or involved in an accident. The law also permits, but does not require, law enforcement to tow a vehicle failing to provide POI at the time of the stop.
The JLA law is bringing Tennessee into the digital age by allowing law enforcement and the state to quickly and easily determine whether someone is compliance with the law. Once the program goes online in January, the state Department of Revenue will begin contacting drivers who do not have record of insurance on their vehicles.
Finally, the JLA law does establish financial penalties for failure to obtain POI, with the ability to suspend or revoke the registration for ultimate failure to comply.
Priority and Applicability of Auto Coverage
The provisions of this section is incorporated into the PP auto policy by ISO form PP 01 92 (01 09) and into the commercial policies by CA 01 46 (07 01). This law applies to liability only.
56-7-1101. Priority and applicability of coverages.
(a) (1) In all cases arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on which the owner of the motor vehicle has any insurance coverages, the owner's policy is primary if the vehicle is being operated with the permission of the owner and within the scope of the permission granted.
(2) Any other coverages which may be available to the permittee are not applicable unless and until the limits of all coverages provided by the owner's policy first are exhausted.
(b) Any provision of subsection (a) or (b) to the contrary notwithstanding, where the only insurance coverage provided by the owner of such vehicle is under a garage policy, then any coverage which may be available to the permittee shall be primary and the coverage under the owner's garage policy shall not be applicable unless and until the limits of all coverage available to the permittee shall be first exhausted; provided, that when any nonowned vehicle is in the possession, custody or control of a person who is in the business of storing, parking, servicing or repairing vehicles, then any insurance available to the owner shall not be applicable unless and until all insurance that is available under a garage policy of such person in possession has been exhausted.
(c) When a claim arises out of the operation of a motor vehicle which is leased, under a written lease agreement, and pursuant to which agreement the lessee provides coverage for the vehicle, then any other coverage which may be available for the vehicle through the lessor is not applicable unless and until the limits of all coverage provided by the lessee for the vehicle first are exhausted.
(d) Subsections (a) and (c) are effective as to all policies written after May 7, 1973, and to all renewals of existing policies made after May 7, 1973. Subsection (b) is effective as to all policies written after April 5, 1974, and to all renewals of existing policies made after April 5, 1974.
Click Here to read about Sharing MVRs
Tennessee Accident Reports Now Available Online
The Tennessee Department of Safety has announced that drivers in the state may now purchase accident reports online through a new partnership. The program will be run by Appriss, Inc, who also added partnerships with Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Kentucky.
The new service is already online at http://www.tnbuycrash.com and is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Crashes investigated by the Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP), as well as local police and sheriff departments, should be available online within seven days of the crash. The cost of an online collision report is $10.
Citizens may continue to visit any local THP district office or law enforcement agency to purchase crash reports. The fee for these options remains $4.
Traffic Cam Citations
TCA 55-8-198 states:
“A traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from a surveillance camera that has been installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations shall be considered a non-moving traffic violation.” This means that traffic camera tickets are not listed or posted to anyone’s MVR.
The owner of a vehicle subject to a camera citation will not be responsible for the violation if:
On or before the court date the owner furnishes the court an affidavit stating the name and address of the person that had control of the vehicle at the time of the violation.
If the vehicle or plates were stolen at the time of the violation the owner has thirty (30) days from the mailing date of the citation to furnish an affidavit denying the owner was the operator and furnish a certified copy of the police report reflecting the theft.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Umbrellas
Uninsured Motorist Coverage Not Required For Umbrella Policies
The article below explains Chapter 825 of the Public Acts of 1996. The law removed the requirement that umbrella policies had to provide UM limits equal to the liability limits unless otherwise requested in writing by the insured.
Uninsured Motorist Law: Be wary of potentially serious E&O exposure
On July 1, 1996, the uninsured motorist law changed and may result in a dramatic reduction in coverage for some insureds ... and a dramatically increased E&O exposure for you.
The prior law, § 56-71201(a)(3) stated, "Any umbrella insurance policy that includes automobile liability insurance shall comply with the provisions of this section so long as the underlying limits of Uninsured motorist coverage are equal to the underlying limits of automobile liability insurance."
In plain English, what the old law meant was an umbrella carrier usually had to offer UM limits equal to the umbrella limits. For example, if the insured had an auto policy with $300,00O liability and UM limits, and purchased a $1,000,000 umbrella, the insurer had to provide $1,000,000 in UM coverage if the insured wanted such limits.
Under the current law, the provision above has now been replaced by, 'No uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage need be provided in this state by an excess or umbrella policy of insurance."
Due to a quirk in our insurance code, if a company intends to non-renew or restrict coverage under even a personal umbrella, it must comply with Tennessee's commercial risk non-renewal law, rather than the laws governing personal risk insurance. Since a personal umbrella policy does not meet the statutory definition of "personal risk insurance", it falls into the category of "commercial risk insurance" and related laws. Therefore, to remove UM coverage when renewing a personal umbrella, the carrier must provide at least 60 days notice to the insured, according to the Tennessee Department of Insurance.
Uninsured Motorists Statistics Continue to Rise
After a request for current numbers on traffic accidents in the state, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security has released statistics about drivers in Tennessee. For 2014 there are some 4.6 million licensed drivers and 6.9 million registered vehicles. During 2013 some 60,500 drivers had their license suspended for financial responsibility violations and some 10,200 had their license revoked for financial responsibility violations.
Uninsured motorists were involved in 40,300 accidents in 2011, 41,100 in 2012 and 39,700 in 2013. Unlicensed drivers were involved in some 21,900 accidents in 2011, 24,600 in 202 and 25,600 in 2013.
In addition, the status of unlicensed drivers involved in accidents by status and the number of accidents were:
2011 - 99 2012 - 104 2013 - 129
2011 - 25 2012 - 42 2013 - 50
2011 - 1,010 2013 - 1,074 2013 - 1,065
2011- 12,329 2012-13,979 2013- 14,454
2011 - 2,609 2012 - 3,054 2013 - 3,291
2011 - 5,876 2012 - 6,368 2013 - 6,632
2011- 21,948 2012-24,644 2013- 25,621
As you can see, these numbers continue to increase. Several bills have been filed in the past to attempt to address these issues, and we expect several more in the upcoming session. Insurors will be monitoring any such legislation closely, and we will update you as it progresses in 2015.
When is UM Rejection Rule Met?
This week, the Court held that the statutory requirement of T.C.A. 56-7-1201(a)(2) for a written rejection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, or a selection of benefits lower than liability limits is met when the insured signs an application listing the separate, but lower, limits without actually initialing a block stating that purpose.
Here was the real life example. The insured was provided with the insurance Application to review and sign. The first page of the Application listed “Liability” coverage limit as $1,000,000 and the “Uninsured Motorist” coverage limit as $60,000. On the third page of the Application, the insured was given three choices, which were 1) selecting the UM BI limits indicated in the application, 2) selecting UM BI and PD coverage in its entirety, or 3) selecting only UM PD in its entirety. The insured signed the Application, but he neglected to select any of the three choices regarding UM insurance.
The question before the court was whether the statutory requirement of rejection of UM limits was met without additional proof of intent to reject the matching uninsured motorist coverage. The Court looked at the evidence in the record and the only evidence of intent was the insured’s signature on the Application. The law in Tennessee is well settled that the insured is presumed to have knowledge of the contract’s contents when he signs it. Therefore, if the insured fails to read the contract, he signs at his peril and may not later deny his obligation under the contract. The court held that the insured must suffer the consequences of his own negligence.
The court determined that the insured’s act of signing the Application which clearly listed the liability limits on the first page, was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of rejecting or selecting lower UM limits.