In a decision that could ripple through the commercial insurance landscape, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled that two insurers must share responsibility for defending a property management company in a premises liability lawsuit. The decision, issued May 21, 2025, in HG Jones, LLC v. Jordan Howell et al., offers a cautionary tale about the challenges posed by overlapping insurance policies and conflicting “other insurance” clauses.
The case stems from a March 2021 slip-and-fall incident at a rental property in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Laila Ali filed suit in February 2022 against property owner Jordan Howell and HG Jones, LLC, which managed the property under the name Real Property Management Solutions. The lawsuit alleged injuries from a fall down the front steps of the residence at 1824 Herald Lane.
At the center of the dispute were two insurance policies - one held by Howell through The Cincinnati Insurance Company, and the other by HG Jones through Auto-Owners Insurance Company. Each policy contained language suggesting that its coverage would be secondary if another policy applied.
Cincinnati insured the property owner with a Dwelling and Personal Property Coverage Policy, while HG Jones had a Commercial General Liability Policy with Auto-Owners. The property management agreement between Howell and HG Jones required the owner to carry liability insurance “in sufficient amounts to protect the interest of parties hereto,” and to have the policy written to protect the manager “in the same manner and the same extent as the Owner,” including naming the manager as an additional insured.
After the lawsuit was filed, HG Jones made a formal demand to Howell and Cincinnati to provide defense and indemnity. When both refused, HG Jones filed suit and amended its complaint on July 19, 2023, to add Cincinnati as a defendant. HG Jones argued that because it was acting as Howell’s real estate manager, it qualified as an “insured” under Cincinnati’s policy and therefore Cincinnati had the primary duty to defend and indemnify it in the underlying lawsuit.
Cincinnati conceded that HG Jones qualified as an “insured” under its policy but contended that the distinction between an “insured” and an “additional insured” was legally significant. Because HG Jones was not added as an “additional insured,” Cincinnati argued, its coverage should be excess to the Auto-Owners policy.
The trial court disagreed. On March 25, 2024, it ruled that Cincinnati’s policy provided primary coverage, finding no legal distinction between “insured” and “additional insured” in this context. The court also found that Cincinnati was obligated to reimburse HG Jones $2,000 in attorney’s fees, payable within thirty (30) days unless appealed.
But on appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed that decision. Writing for the court, Judge Frank G. Clement Jr. concluded that the “other insurance” clauses in both the Cincinnati and Auto-Owners policies were “mutually repugnant” - each policy attempted to defer primary coverage to the other. The result, the court found, would be a situation in which neither insurer provided primary coverage, which is legally impermissible.
Because the two “other insurance” clauses effectively canceled each other out, the appellate court ruled that both policies must be treated as providing primary coverage. It ordered that the duty to defend and indemnify HG Jones in the underlying premises liability lawsuit be prorated between Cincinnati and Auto-Owners. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
The decision offers a clear message to insurers and policyholders: when multiple policies include broad “other insurance” clauses, those provisions can conflict in ways that courts may ultimately refuse to enforce. It’s a strong reminder to insurers to draft clearly and coordinate coverage expectations, particularly in property management settings where multiple parties and policies often intersect.
