Opinion ID: 3013487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act

Text: Sentinel also asserts a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Tenn. Code Ann. S 47-18-104 to 109. That statute prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or business, including the practices of insurance companies. Sentinel contends that the issuance of the performance bonds fell within the purview of the Act. We need not discuss the merits of this claim, because it is time barred. Tenn. Code Ann. S 47-18-110 provides that a cause of action under the Act shall be brought within one year from a person’s discovery of the unlawful act or practice, but in no event shall an action under Tenn. Code Ann. S 47-18109 be brought more than four years after the date of the consumer transaction giving rise to the claim for relief. The bonds were issued in February and November 1994, and according to the findings of fact in the Tennessee Chancery Court, the default occurred in 1997. Defendants acknowledge that the discovery of the unlawful act or practice may be considered to have been established as of September 1, 1998, when a complaint averring fraud against Namer, Quackenbush, and Universal was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. However, the action before us was not commenced until February 1, 2001. Under the one year limitation period, Sentinel’s claim is barred. Sentinel argues that the claim was timely under the Tennessee saving statute. Tenn. Code Ann.S 28-1-105(a). This provision permits an otherwise untimely claim if it was originally commenced within the statutory period, was subject to disposition against the plaintiff upon any 17 ground not concluding the plaintiff ’s right of action, and thereafter commenced within one year of that disposition. However, Sentinel’s argument is unavailing. Its claims under the Act were originally asserted against the defendants in the third party complaint in the Tennessee Chancery action, filed on December 6, 1999. Under the date fixing the discovery of the unlawful act or practice, that action is also beyond the one year limitation period. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.4 A True Copy: Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit _________________________________________________________________ 4. The District Court included Defendant Quackenbush it its Order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. We find no error in this determination, and affirm the District Court’s Order in its entirety. 18