Dunn v. Hackett
| Decision Date | 08 January 1992 |
| Citation | 833 S.W.2d 78 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Theodore Howard DUNN, Sr. and Zelma D. Dunn, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronnie L. HACKETT and Holiday Inn, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Daniel L. Wischhof, Donald D. Zuccarello, Nashville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Joseph B. Kockenkemper, II, Nashville, for unnamed defendant-appellee, State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
This case involves uninsured motorist insurance coverage. Plaintiffs, Theodore Howard Dunn, Sr., and Zelma D. Dunn, appeal from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
In 1986, Theodore Dunn, while driving a van owned by his employer, Holiday Inn, Inc., in the course of his employment, sustained personal injuries when he was involved in a collision with an automobile driven by defendant, Ronnie L. Hackett. Theodore Dunn received workers compensation benefits from Holiday Inns totaling $19,210.97 for medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. Dunn did not attempt to recover the permanent partial disability benefits, although the evidence at trial indicated that he had an anatomical disability rating of two percent to the body as a whole and ten percent to the leg.
On June 5, 1987, plaintiffs, Theodore Dunn and wife, Zelma Dunn, filed suit against Hackett for personal injuries and loss of consortium respectively, and pursuant to T.C.A. Sec. 56-7-1206 caused summons to be served on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company which provided uninsured motorist coverage for Dunn's personal automobile with limits of $50,000.00 per person and $100,000.00 per occurrence. State Farm's answer avers that its liability for uninsured motorist benefits to Dunn is secondary and that the insurer for the vehicle Dunn was operating at the time of the accident is the primary carrier.
The Dunns' case against Hackett resulted in a judgment on the jury verdicts for Mr. Dunn in the amount of $45,000.00 and for Mrs. Dunn in the amount of $5,000.00. Since Hackett had a liability insurance policy with a limit of $25,000.00, a determination must be made as to whether there is any applicable uninsured motorist insurance for the difference between the judgment and Hackett's coverage limit.
State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. Plaintiffs have appealed and the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting State Farm's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that its uninsured motorist coverage was secondary and not primary.
Summary judgment is to be rendered by a trial court only when it is shown that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56.03 (1984). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court and the Court of Appeals must consider the matter in the same manner as a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff's proof, i.e., all the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion and all legitimate conclusions of fact must be drawn in favor of the opponent. It is only when there is no disputed issue of material fact that a summary judgment should be granted by the trial court and sustained by the Court of Appeals. Graves v. Anchor Wire Corp. of Tenn., 692 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn.App.1985); Bennett v. Mid-South Terminals Corp., 660 S.W.2d 799 (Tenn.App.1983).
As previously noted, Dunn was driving a van owned by Holiday Inn at the time of the collision with Hackett. T.C.A. Sec. 56-7-1201(b)(1), (2) provides:
(1) The uninsured motorist coverage on the vehicle in which the injured party was an occupant shall be the primary uninsured motorist coverage;
(2) Should that primary uninsured motorist coverage be exhausted due to the extent of compensatory damages, then the injured occupant may recover as excess from the insurance on the vehicle owned by the insured that provides the highest limits of uninsured motorist coverage. In no instance shall more than one (1) coverage from more than one (1) uninsured motorist policy be available as excess over and above the primary coverage available to the injured occupant.
The record establishes that Holiday Inns had a policy of insurance with Old Republic Insurance Company, but the policy provisions did not expressly include uninsured motorist coverage for vehicles based in Tennessee. The policy was delivered in Tennessee, and State Farm asserts that, because of the provisions of T.C.A. Sec. 56-7-1201 (1989), Old Republic did provide uninsured motorist coverage. T.C.A. Sec. 56-7-1201 as pertinent provides:
56-7-1201. Requirements and types of coverage--Presumptions.--(a) Every automobile liability insurance policy delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this state, covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle designed for use primarily on public roads and registered or principally garaged in this state, shall include uninsured motorist coverage, subject to provisions filed with and approved by the commissioner of commerce and insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover compensatory damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.
(1) The limits of such uninsured motorist coverage shall be equal to the bodily injury liability limits stated in the policy.
(2) Provided, however, that any named insured may reject in writing such uninsured motorist coverage completely or select lower limits of such coverage
but not less than the minimum coverage limits in Sec. 55-12-107. Any document signed by the named insured or legal representative which initially rejects such coverage or selects lower limits shall be binding upon every insured to whom such policy applies and shall be conclusively presumed to become a part of the policy or contract when issued or delivered, irrespective of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Powers
...of a statute by the legislature raises a presumption that the legislature intended to depart from the old law. See Duan v. Hackett, 833 S.W.2d 78, 81 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992). Powers also relies on the rule that one must presume that the legislature did not enact useless or meaningless legislati......
-
Byrd v. Hall
...as to which there is no genuine dispute regarding material facts. Evco Corp. v. Ross, 528 S.W.2d 20, 24 (Tenn.1975); Dunn v. Hackett, 833 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tenn.App.1992); Ferguson v. Tomerlin, 656 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tenn.App.1983). The summary judgment procedure was implemented to enable the co......
-
Campbell v. Sundquist
...party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56.03; Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tenn.1993); Dunn v. Hackett, 833 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tenn.App.1992). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. By......
-
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Bloodworth, No. M2003-02986-COA-R10-CV (Tenn. App. 6/29/2007), M2003-02986-COA-R10-CV.
...particularly, Tennessee courts will generally apply the law of the state where an insurance policy was issued. Dunn v. Hackett, 833 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that an insurer domiciled in another state was subject to Tennessee uninsured motorist law because it issued the polic......