Talat Parveen v. ACG South Insurance Agency, LLC, 613 S.W.3d 113

Talat Parveen and Khurshid Shaukat met with agent Jeffrey Norris (ACG) in 2013 to obtain replacement auto and umbrella coverage; they allege they gave Norris their prior State Farm umbrella showing separate excess uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and asked for identical coverage.
Norris provided a Safeco umbrella quote and policy that did not list excess UM/UIM as a separate line item; the Insureds accepted the policy and paid the premiums in 2013–2015.
The Safeco umbrella contained an exclusion for UM/UIM unless specifically endorsed; no such endorsement existed at the time of a November 2015 accident in which Dr. Parveen was injured by an underinsured driver.
Insureds sued Safeco (unsuccessfully) and then sued Norris/ACG for negligent failure to procure the requested excess UM/UIM coverage; Insureds sought at least $1,000,000.
Appellants moved for summary judgment relying on Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-135(b), which creates a rebuttable presumption that payment of premiums constitutes acceptance of the coverage; the trial court granted summary judgment because the Insureds did not rebut the presumption.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the presumption applies only between parties to the insurance contract (i.e., insurer and insured); the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating summary judgment for the agents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-135(b) (premium payment creates rebuttable presumption of acceptance) apply to actions against an insurance agent for failure to procure coverage?	Parveen: statute is limited to disputes "under the contract" (insurer–insured) and should not apply to third-party claims against agents.	Norris/ACG: plain language creates a presumption about insureds’ acceptance; it governs who is presumed to have accepted coverage, not which defendants may invoke it.	Yes. The Court holds §56-7-135(b) applies in agent failure-to-procure suits; "under the contract" modifies "insureds," not the class of parties who may assert the presumption.
Does applying §56-7-135(b) to agent claims improperly repeal or displace the common-law failure-to-procure cause of action?	Parveen: statute focuses on insured conduct and would derogate common law unless express.	Norris/ACG: statute is a burden-shifting, rebuttable presumption; it does not abolish common-law remedies.	No. The Court treats the statute as a rebuttable, burden-shifting rule that does not eliminate agent liability; insureds remain able to rebut the presumption (here they did not).

Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417 (Tenn. 2011) (recognizing agent failure-to-procure cause of action and its elements)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tarrant, 363 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2012) (background on insurer vicarious liability issues informing statutory context)
Harris v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2016) (applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-135(b) to claims involving an insurance broker/agent)
Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. 1995) (principle that statutes in derogation of common law are strictly construed)
Coleman v. Olson, 551 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2018) (instruction to read statutory text in its context and give words their ordinary meaning)