Affordable Construction Services, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 621 S.W.3d 693

Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Association (insured) suffered property damage; Owners Insurance Company issued a settlement check payable only to the Association.
Affordable Construction Services, Inc. performed repairs for the Association and later claimed it was entitled to be named as a payee under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-111.
Affordable sued Owners asserting the insurer violated § 56-7-111 by not naming the general contractor on the proceeds check; case removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
The federal court certified three questions of Tennessee law: (1) whether § 56-7-111 creates a private right of action; (2) whether a contract between contractor and insured is required for the statute to apply; and (3) if so, whether that contract must be uncompleted when the check is written.
The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded § 56-7-111 does not expressly or impliedly create a private right of action for a general contractor and therefore answered only the first certified question, leaving the contract questions unanswered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 56-7-111 provide a private right of action?	Affordable: statute entitles general contractors to sue insurers who fail to name them as payees.	Owners: statute contains no private remedy; enforcement is by statute (misdemeanor) and any remedy must come from the legislature.	No. Court: § 56-7-111 grants no express private right and Affordable failed to show an implied right under Brown factors.
Must there be a contract between contractor and insured for § 56-7-111 to apply?	Affordable: statute applies only when a general contractor of an uncompleted contract exists; thus a contract is required.	Owners: argued lack of contract defeats contractor’s claim.	Not answered. Court declined to reach certified question after resolving Q1.
If contract required, must it be uncompleted when the check is written?	Affordable: statute refers to "uncompleted construction or building contract," so the contract must be uncompleted at the time of the check.	Owners: disputed the applicability depending on contract status.	Not answered. Court declined to reach certified question after resolving Q1.

Brown v. Tenn. Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010) (establishes framework for implying a private right of action under state law)
Hardy v. Tournament Players Club, Inc., 513 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. 2017) (applies Brown factors and denies implied private right under Tip Statute)
Embraer Aircraft Maint. Servs., Inc. v. Aerocentury Corp., 538 S.W.3d 404 (Tenn. 2017) (procedural guidance on answering certified questions)
Premium Fin. Corp. of Am. v. Crump Ins. Servs. of Memphis, Inc., 978 S.W.2d 91 (Tenn. 1998) (counsels against implying private remedies where statutory scheme provides governmental enforcement)
Seals v. H & F, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 237 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory-construction principles for certified questions)
Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1979) (canon: courts should not read private remedies into statutes that provide particular enforcement mechanisms)
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (factors for implying private rights under federal law)