Dixon v. Gunter
| Decision Date | 25 February 1982 |
| Citation | 636 S.W.2d 437 |
| Parties | Mary Jo DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George E. GUNTER and Continental Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Fred Cowden, Jr., Robert Hoehn, Nashville, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas Mink, II, Parker, Nichol & Finley, Nashville, for The Continental Ins. Co.
ABRIDGED
(With the concurrence of participating judges, the original
opinion has been abridged for publication.)
This is an interlocutory appeal for which permission was granted by the Trial Court and this Court. Plaintiff sued for wrongful death of her husband, Alfred Wayne Dixon, in an automobile collision. Named as defendants were George E. Gunter, an alleged uninsured motorist involved in the collision and Continental Insurance Company, a subsidiary of which had issued an automobile policy containing uninsured motorist coverage to Nashville Stone Erection Company, Inc., of which Alfred Wayne Dixon was president and sole stockholder.
The Trial Judge entered summary judgment dismissing Continental, and plaintiff appealed.
The sole issue presented by appellant is whether the policy issued to the corporation afforded uninsured motorist protection to the president and sole stockholder of the corporation while operating a vehicle belonging to a third party and not engaged in the business of the corporation.
The following stipulation was submitted to the Trial Judge:
It is agreed by and between the parties that plaintiff's intestate was the driver of an automobile owned by Juanita Sutton on August 2, 1980, when he was in collision with an automobile owned and driven by defendant, George E. Gunter, of Crab Orchard, Tennessee, said accident occurring at Third Avenue and Jefferson Street in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee;
That the automobile driven by plaintiff's intestate was insured through State Farm Automobile Insurance Company with uninsured motorist coverage of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), and that defendant's automobile was uninsured.
That said State Farm Automobile Insurance Company has paid to plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of deceased, Alfred Wayne Dixon, the sum of Twenty-three Thousand Dollars ($23,000.00) under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy;
That said deceased was president and principal owner of Nashville Stone Erection Company, Inc., which corporation was insured by Glen Falls Insurance Company under a policy providing liability and uninsured motorist coverage, and that said policy was in full force and effect on said date of August 2, 1980.
That the documents referred to and attached to this stipulation, to wit: release; Glen Falls Insurance Company policy number LBA2 60 29 89, both of which are true, correct and complete copies of the originals and are to be considered by the Court as originals.
The policy, issued to Nashville Stone Erection Company, Inc., includes "Item Two-Schedule of Coverages and Covered Autos" as follows:
COVERAGES COVERED AUTOS
(Entry of one or more of the symbols
from ITEM THREE shows which
autos are covered autos)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIABILITY INSURANCE 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION (P.I.P.)
(for equivalent No-fault coverage)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDED P.I.P (for equivalent added
No-fault cov.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPERTY PROTECTION INSURANCE
(P.P.I.) (Michigan only)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTO MEDICAL PAYMENTS INSURANCE 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNINSURED MOTORISTS INSURANCE 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICAL DAMAGE INSURANCE
COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIFIED PERILS COVERAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLLISION COVERAGE 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWING AND LABOR
(Not available in Calif.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in "Item Three-Description of Covered Auto Designation Symbols" are the following pertinent provisions:
SYMBOL
1 = ANY AUTO
7 = SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AUTOS.
Only those autos described in ITEM FOUR for which a premium
charge is shown (and for liability coverage any trailers you don't
own while attached to any power unit described in ITEM FOUR).
Included in "Item Four-Schedule of Covered Autos" is the following:
"Part I, Words and Phrases with Special Meaning-Read Them Carefully" contains the following pertinent provision:
The following words and phrases have special meaning throughout this policy and appear in bold-face type when used:
A. "You" and "your" mean the person or organization shown as the named insured in ITEM ONE of the declarations.
....
F. "Insured" means any person or organization qualifying as an insured in the WHO IS INSURED section of the applicable insurance. Except with respect to our limit of liability, the insurance afforded applies separately to each insured who is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn
...Co. v. Anderson, 585 F.Supp. 408 (E.D.Pa.1984); Concrete Services, Inc. v. USF & G, 331 S.C. 506, 498 S.E.2d 865 (1998); Dixon v. Gunter, 636 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn.App.1982); Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co. v. McKee, 943 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1997); General Ins. Co. of America v. Icelandic Builders, In......
-
In re Idleaire Technologies Corporation, Case No. 08-10960(KG) (Bankr.Del. 2/18/2009)
...1, 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)("Insurance policies should be construed as a whole in a reasonable and logical manner"); Dixon v. Gunter, 636 S.W.2d 437, 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)("The contract should not be given a forced, unnatural or unreasonable construction which would extend or restrict th......
-
Grossberg v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America
...1051 (Ok.2004); Concrete Servs., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 331 S.C. 506, 498 S.E.2d 865, 866 (1998); Dixon v. Gunter, 636 S.W.2d 437, 441 (Ct.App.Tenn.1982); Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKee, 943 S.W.2d 455, 458 (Tex.1997); Pollard v. Truck Ins. Exch., 26 P.3d 868, 870–71 ......
-
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Sparks, No. W2006-01036-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 12/7/2007)
...beyond its intended scope. Demontbreun v. CNA Ins. Companies, 822 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (citing Dixon v. Gunter, 636 S.W.2d 437, 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)). Insurance policies should be read as a whole, for the purpose of ascertaining and giving effect to the parties' intent......