Insurance suit by site of 2020 Nashville bombing removed to federal court
The bar's suit accuses the insurer of failing to cover its business losses as a result of the incident.
The Nashville establishment that was the site of a suicide bombing attack on Christmas Day 2020 had its lawsuit against its primary insurer removed to federal court this week. The suit accuses the insurer of failing to cover its business losses as a result of the incident.
This case was first surfaced by Law.com Radar.
Rude Ham, formally known for such popular spots as Downtown Nashville Bar and Beer Sellar, filed its suit against U.S. Liability Insurance Co. in the Chancery Court for the 20th Judicial District in Davidson County. The case, alleging that the insurer has refused to pay for covered losses, was removed to the Middle District Court of Tennessee by lawyers at Copeland Stair Valz & Lovell.
The Christmas Day bombing happened in downtown Nashville from a vehicle close to the insured premises, damaging exterior components, leading to future damages over time such as water intrusion, which destroyed some of its equipment and machinery. Anthony Quinn Walker was identified as the attacker.
The complaint, filed by Southeast law firm Burr & Forman, points to the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County’s actions in preventing access to Beer Sellar or Downtown Nashville Bar from the public, which further interrupted their business practices and contributed to income losses.
According to plaintiffs, U.S. Liability is responsible under the policy’s terrorism coverage because Walker’s act can be described as an act of terrorism.
“Due to the fact that Metro and Beer Sellar’s landlord have not allowed Beer Sellar access to retrieve its items or to conduct business at the Insured Premises, Beer Sellar has suffered a constructive total loss at the Insured Premises,” the complaint stated. “Also, many of the improvements and betterments that Beer Sellar made to the Insured Premises cannot be removed by Beer Sellar.”
Although the insurer issued five payments following the loss claim being confirmed, Rude Ham described the refusal to cover business income losses as “particularly egregious.” The largest and last payment issued by the defendant was for $83,405.04, which is allegedly insufficient to cover its business losses.
Plaintiff’s attorneys noted that South Carolina law governs the issues related to the policy because it was issued to Beer Sellar in the state, citing the 2005 Tennessee Court of Appeals case Gov’t Employees Ins. v. Bloodworth.
“Under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-140 the Policy’s two-year suit limitation provision is rendered unenforceable and of no effect, and thereby this action is timely filed, because South Carolina has a three-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract actions like the one at issue here,” the attorneys said.
Neither attorneys at Copeland Stair nor at Burr & Forman could be reached for comment.