A Nashville gas station owner dragged Erie Insurance into federal court, claiming the company shorted its tornado damage payout after a December 2023 EF2 ripped across the city.
The fight centers on what counts as real storm damage and whether Erie ignored evidence that didn’t fit its narrative.
Yellowbird Oil & Gas runs the station and store at 3740 Dickerson Pike. They say the tornado’s 80 mile per hour winds hurled debris that punched through the EPDM rubber roof, letting rainwater seep into the substructure and fry equipment inside. Straightforward on the surface, messy underneath.
Yellowbird carried a commercial property policy with Erie. They say they paid every premium, followed every rule.
The policy covered two buildings, including the station and the canopy, and protected against direct physical loss unless excluded.
Windstorm and hail sat on the list of covered risks, though they carried a separate deductible.
After the storm, Yellowbird hired Premier Claims to size up the mess. Their estimate hit $141,095.86. They pointed to broad roof failure and water intrusion that soaked the layers beneath. Erie responded by bringing in its own engineer.
That expert agreed the tornado damaged the roof but said most of the water intrusion didn’t come from the tornado at all.
Erie offered patch repairs and valued the job at $3,204.77. Subtract a $2,500 deductible and the insurer calculated a payout of $704.77. That number alone lit up the dispute.
Yellowbird says Erie tossed aside infrared imaging and moisture documentation that showed saturation deeper in the roof.
They argue patching over saturated areas breaks state and federal building codes. They also claim Erie’s engineer brushed off their evidence and skipped further moisture testing that could have confirmed the problem.
The suit accuses Erie of breaching the contract and acting in a vexatious and unreasonable way under Tennessee law.
Yellowbird wants damages up to policy limits, a statutory 25% penalty, attorney fees, and punitive damages tied to what they call intentional and reckless claim handling.
The case remains early, no rulings yet. But the dispute shows how quickly tornado losses spiral when insurers and business owners argue over what the storm actually caused and whether the claim handling holds up under scrutiny.
