Supreme Court of Tennessee Disallows Prejudgment Interest in a Personal Injury Case Maintained Solely Against the Plaintiff's UM Insurance Carrier

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has released its opinion in Haddon v. Vanlier, No. M2023-01151-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 12, 2026). The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

In this case, we determine whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in an action brought against a tortfeasor and defended by an uninsured motorist carrier under Tennessee’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-1201–1206 (2016 & Supp. 2025). The trial court determined that Plaintiff Cinda Haddon could not recover prejudgment interest because her claim was for personal injury. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Ms. Haddon brought a contract action. Haddon v. Vanlier, No. M2023-01151-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 4590434, at *2–3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. March 17, 2025). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the trial court for a determination of prejudgment interest. Id. at *5. Upon review, we find that this is a personal injury action. Because prejudgment interest is not available in a personal injury action, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court denying Ms. Haddon prejudgment interest. 

Here is a link to the opinion: <https://tinyurl.com/yv7sxs5f>.

NOTE: This opinion is correct in its analysis and conclusion under Tennessee’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 56-7-1201–1206 (2016 & Supp. 2025). (FWIW: In Tennessee, UM and UIM are treated the same under our statute and both types of claims are referred to colloquially as "UM.")

Rare Case from the Supreme Court of the United States Regarding Medical Malpractice (and Civil Procedure): State-law Filing Requirement That Was in Conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Is Displaced by Federal Rules

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued its opinion in Berk v Choy, 607 U.S. _____ (2026). While I normally post the syllabus from Tennessee state-court opinions here, the one from this slip opinion is a little long; because of that, I offer this analysis instead: 

SCOTUS reviewed the case and held that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Court reasoned that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely Rule 8, which governs what must be pleaded in a complaint that is filed to commence a civil action, sets the standard for pleadings and does not require supporting evidence such as an affidavit. Because Rule 8 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act that regulates the manner and means by which claims are presented, it displaces the contrary Delaware law. SCOTUS reversed the Third Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but disagreeing with the analysis. Her Honor is of the opinion that Rules 3 and 12 are more relevant to the analysis. 

Here is a link to both opinions: <https://tinyurl.com/kbwer5rm>.

NOTE: This opinion is correct and settles a lot of uncertainty that had surrounded medical malpractice claims filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.