Who’s on First‪?‬ Zalma on Insurance

Insurer Files Interpleader to Allow Claim Payment to Proper Competing Claims Against Funds



Post 4773

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v4of8jo-whos-on-first.html  and at https://youtu.be/mCY8rYGqSGc

In an interpleader action arising out of a jury trial in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02817-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. 2016) (“Hanover I”).  In Hanover I,
a jury trial was held on “insurance claims submitted to Hanover [by
Defendants in the instant case] in connection with a 2015 arson fire and
alleged theft at the House of Blues recording studio located on Rayner
Street in Memphis, Tennessee.”

In Hanover American Insurance Company v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC, Christopher C. Brown, and John Falls,
No. 2:20-cv-02834-JPM-cgc, United States District Court, W.D.
Tennessee, Western Division (April 4, 2024) the USDC distributed the
available funds.

The Hanover I jury held that:


Christopher C. Brown (“Brown”) and Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC (“TME”) were indistinguishable; and
Brown/TME made material misrepresentations with the intent to
deceive and committed unlawful insurance acts during the claims process,
and thus Hanover was entitled to recover the advance payments made to
Brown/TME.
The Hanover I jury also held that Falls did not make
material misrepresentations or commit unlawful insurance acts, and thus
awarded him the maximum amount covered by his policy: $2.5 million in
Business Personal Property (“BPP”) and an additional $250,000 in
Business Income (“BI”).

After the jury trial concluded, the USDC granted Hanover’s Rule 50(b)
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered an amended
judgment denying Falls’ recovery. The Sixth Circuit, however, reversed
the post-trial ruling and remanded with instructions to reinstate the
jury verdict as to Falls, which the USDC did.

In the current action: “Hanover II,” Hanover filed its
Complaint for interpleader and declaratory relief. Hanover claims that
the $2.5 million BPP insurance awarded to Falls is subject to multiple
competing claims. Hanover’s Declaratory Relief Complaint seeks a
declaration that the $2.5 million BPP award is null and void as a matter
of Tennessee public policy. It also pleads in the alternative that the
Court must resolve the various competing claims to the BPP insurance
proceeds and declare to whom, and in what amount, those funds should be
paid.

Prior to trial the Parties stipulated to the following facts during pre-trial conference:


John Falls leased Studio B at the former House of Blues studio
located on Rayner Street in Memphis, Tennessee, and the equipment
therein from Christopher Brown who owned TME.
Falls obtained insurance from Hanover that included, inter alia, $2.5 million in coverage for BPP and $500,000 in coverage for BI.
Brown/TME had a separate policy that covered, inter alia, the structure of the studio building.
On November 5, 2015, an arson fire occurred at the House of Blues
recording studio located on Rayner Street in Memphis, Tennessee, causing
substantial damage to the building and the BPP therein.
The evidence presented at the trial of the original action (Hanover I)
established that Brown/TME falsified documents and submitted fake
invoices, phony receipts, and doctored bank account statements in
connection with the insurance claims following the fire.
In the appeal regarding the original action, the Sixth Circuit
wrote: “The jury awarded Falls $2,500,000 as the amount of insurance he
was owed, up to his policy limit, for Business Personal Property
coverage …. The BPP payment covers the loss of the gear in Falls’
studio. However, Brown is the ultimate owner of the lost gear, on which
Falls had a perpetually renewable leasehold.”








---

Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support