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:
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: