STEADFAST INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES LLC v. AMGUARD INSURNACE COMPANY (2024)

ORDER

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23, a certification order was filed in this Court on January 5, 2024, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Briefs have now been filed pursuant to Section 7, and, upon consideration of the certification order and the briefs filed by the parties, this Court declines certification of the following question of law:

When an insurance company insures a property in Tennessee with a stated policy limit for building coverage, and the requirements for a “valued” policy under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-801 – 803 are otherwise satisfied, is the policy a “valued” or “open” policy under Tennessee law when the insurance policy also includes: (1) “replacement cost” as an available damages valuation method for covered losses: and (2) an appraisal condition?

The District Court granted certification because, in its view, Steadfast presented an issue of first impression—namely, that Tennessee's “valued policy” law applies to every fire insurance policy as a matter of law. Dist. Ct. Cert. Order at 5 & n.1. Steadfast, however, does not advance this legal argument in the briefs it has filed in this Court. In fact, Steadfast repeatedly disclaims making any such argument. The only issue that Steadfast presents in this Court is whether the particular insurance policy at issue in this case is a “valued policy” given the policy's language. Because Steadfast has not advanced the legal argument that the District Court thought warranted certification, this Court declines certification.

Because the Court declines certification, the Court also denies as moot Steadfast Investments and Properties, LLC's motion for oral argument.

PER CURIAM