Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 28 April 1981 |
Parties | MEMPHIS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY and Reginald Bryan Dillard, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Don G. Owens, Jr., Memphis, for defendant-appellant.
Gary L. Jewel, William P. Kenworthy, Memphis, for plaintiffs-appellees.
This is an appeal from a Chancery jury verdict against the automobile insurer for the value of the vehicle, plus a bad faith penalty.
Eight issues are presented for our consideration. Counsel for appellant states in his brief: We find that the "issues" are not conducive to discussion either, and we decide them adversely to appellant.
The remaining five complaints taken together raise three issues which are:
(1) Did the Trial Judge err in refusing to admit evidence regarding a polygraph test.
(2) Did the Trial Judge err in submitting the issue of bad faith to the jury.
(3) Is there any evidence from which the jury could properly arrive at a value for the stolen vehicle.
On September 10, 1977, Reginald Bryan Dillard purchased a new Ford Bronco which was financed through the Memphis Bank and Trust Company. The vehicle was insured against theft by the defendant Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, with a loss payable clause providing for payment of loss to Dillard and the Bank as their interests may appear.
The plaintiffs alleged that on December 12, 1977, the insured vehicle was stolen. Subsequently, proof of loss was filed and demand made for payment. The insurer refused payment and this suit by the Bank and owner resulted.
The following issues of fact were submitted to the jury, with their responses as indicated.
(1) Was a 1977 Ford Bronco, belonging to the Plaintiff, Reginald Dillard, stolen on or about December 2, 1977? Answer: Yes.
(2) If your answer to issue number one is "yes", what was the value of said vehicle at the time it was stolen? Answer: $6,500.00.
(3) Has the Defendant insurance company acted in bad faith in refusing to pay the Plaintiff's claim? Answer: Yes.
(4) If your answer to number three is yes, what amount, not exceeding twenty-five percent of the loss should be assessed against the Defendant insurance company for additional expenses, loss and injury occasioned to the Plaintiffs? Answer: Twenty-five percent, $1,625.00.
The basis of the insurer's refusal to pay was the failure of the plaintiff to pass, to the satisfaction of the insurer, the polygraph or psychological stress valuation tests. All evidence regarding the taking of the tests or their results was excluded from the jury. However, such evidence has been preserved in the record and shows that the plaintiff Dillard voluntarily submitted to the initial tests. From these tests, the party who administered same concluded that deceptive and untruthful answers were given by Dillard to the following questions:
The results of the testing were the sole basis for the insurer's refusal to pay. The insurer has never had any other information which would indicate a false claim was being made, other than a "gut feeling" precipitated by the test results. At the trial, the insurer could not show that the vehicle was not stolen, furthermore, it was forbidden by the ruling of the Court from giving its only reasons for refusal to honor the claim, thus the defendant insurer adduced no proof at the trial.
As should now be perceived the real issue on appeal is the admissibility of the results of a polygraph test, freely taken by the insured, to rebut a charge of bad faith in refusing to pay. Stated another way, the question is whether an insurer may show the results of a lie detector...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sabag v. Continental South Dakota
...(1984) (upon proper objection, polygraph evidence not admissible in any civil or criminal trial); Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 619 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn.App.1981) (results of lie detector test not admissible in civil cases); and Pierson v. McClanahan, 531 S.W.2d......
-
deVries v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...become reliable in civil cases. Unreliable evidence is unreliable evidence in any forum." Memphis Bank and Trust Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 619 S.W.2d 395, 396 (Tenn.App.1981); see also Aetna Insurance Co. v. Barnett Brothers, Inc., supra, 289 F.2d at 34 (affirming exclu......
-
Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...(9th Cir.1979). The test of the insurer's conduct is one of reasonableness. 16 Id. at 1212; Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 619 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tenn.App.1981); Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., 66 Cal.2d 425, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 16-17, 426 P.2d 173, 176-77 (1967). As r......
-
Mize v. Harford Ins. Co.
...293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); Salzburg & Reddin, Federal Rules of Evidence Manual, pp. 414 & 426; Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 619 S.W.2d 395 (Tenn.App.1981); but cf., Moskos v. National Ben Franklin Ins. Co., 60 Ill.App.3d 130, 17 Ill.Dec. 389, 376 N.E.2d 388 (197......