A storage facility is supposed to provide a safe place for belongings that cannot immediately be moved into a new home. But a Tennessee couple who rented two units after selling their house discovered that almost everything they had stored was missing, despite being assured that the facility had security cameras and regular patrols. Their investigation raised further questions about the locks, the facility owner’s security claims and the handling of earlier theft complaints.In a November 6, 2026, decision available on Justia, the Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld a judgment against Posey Storage Solutions and its owner, Tim Posey, in a lawsuit brought by Nathan and Devan Dickey. The court affirmed $33,500 in damages and a separate award of $23,700 in attorney’s fees and expenses. It found that the trial court had sufficient evidence to hold the owner liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, gross negligence, theft-related claims and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
How the couple’s belongings disappeared
The dispute began in December 2019, when Devan Dickey contacted Posey about renting storage space. The couple were selling their home and preparing to move away from the area, so they needed two units to keep their household belongings.According to Devan’s testimony, Posey described the facility’s security arrangements, pointing out cameras installed around the buildings and saying that he regularly patrolled the premises three to four times a day. He also recommended two locks sold by the facility, describing them as stronger than commercially available alternatives and difficult to cut with bolt cutters. The couple purchased the locks for $10 each. However, Posey did not disclose that he retained a master key that could open them.The two units contained valuable household and work-related belongings. One held furniture, a mattress and sentimental items inherited by Devan from her grandmother. The other contained Nathan’s expensive work equipment, valued at approximately $28,350. In November 2020, Nathan returned to the facility to retrieve a welding hood and discovered that almost everything in his unit had disappeared. Only a table and a crockpot remained. He contacted the police and checked his wife’s unit, which initially appeared untouched.Several weeks later, the couple returned to collect the remaining belongings and discovered that Devan’s unit had also been almost completely emptied. Its lock appeared intact, and only damaged Christmas ornaments and a broken blanket ladder remained.
Why the security claims became important
When the couple first reported the thefts, Posey told them he would review the surveillance footage. He also suggested that he suspected one of his workers might have been responsible. However, no footage was ever provided. Posey later failed to attend a scheduled meeting with the couple and stopped responding to their calls. The Dickeys subsequently discovered that the cameras were not functional. They also learned that Posey retained master keys to the locks he sold customers.Evidence presented during the trial revealed earlier theft complaints involving the facility. Two former customers, Ann Harrod and Cynthia Sarapata, testified about missing belongings and their unsuccessful attempts to obtain assistance from Posey. Police records also documented multiple theft and burglary reports involving the property between 2015 and 2021.The trial court found that Posey had misrepresented the facility’s security arrangements to persuade the Dickeys to rent the units. It also concluded that he had failed to properly supervise an individual who had access to the master keys.
Why the storage owner was held liable
The trial court found Posey liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, gross negligence, negligent supervision, theft-related conversion and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). It concluded that the owner knew the cameras were fake but continued presenting them as working security equipment. It also found that he had failed to disclose the master keys and allowed an employee access without adequate supervision.Posey argued that the rental agreement protected him from liability because it stated that the facility would not be responsible for property lost through theft or other causes. However, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that he had failed to properly raise this contractual defence in his legal response.The court also explained that such an exclusion could not protect a business from liability for gross negligence, reckless conduct or intentional wrongdoing. Under Tennessee law, consumer protection rights under the TCPA cannot simply be waived through a contract. The appeals court further rejected the argument that statements made outside the written rental agreement should have been excluded. Evidence of those statements was relevant to the fraud and consumer protection claims.
What the appeals court decided
The Tennessee Court of Appeals gave considerable weight to the trial court’s assessment of Posey’s credibility. It noted that his testimony had changed between his deposition and the trial, and that he had been contradicted by evidence concerning previous theft complaints and the facility’s security arrangements.The trial court had concluded that the overwhelming evidence indicated Posey was responsible for the burglaries himself or had authorised or failed to supervise an employee who committed the thefts. The appeals court found sufficient evidence supporting the judgment and declined to disturb those findings. The owner also failed to properly challenge the merits of several findings, including the fraudulent misrepresentation and consumer protection claims.In its November 6, 2026, decision, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety and remanded the case. The $33,500 damages award and $23,700 in attorney’s fees and expenses therefore remained in place. The court also assessed the costs of the appeal against Posey and Posey Storage Solutions. Overall, the ruling highlights that storage businesses cannot rely on broad contractual disclaimers to escape responsibility for deceptive security claims or grossly negligent conduct. It also reinforces the importance of truthful representations when businesses promise customers that their belongings will be protected.
