Jones v. Mulkey
| Decision Date | 04 February 1981 |
| Parties | Bill R. (Skeet) JONES and wife Jean Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bernard MULKEY, Administrator of the Estate of Wendell Scott Mulkey and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Defendants-Appellees. 620 S.W.2d 498 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Charles R. Terry, Morristown, Jerry J. Phillips, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Earnest R. Taylor, Morristown, for defendant-appellee State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
In this interlocutory appeal which was granted upon representation of counsel that resolution of the question presented would be dispositive of the controversy, a single issue is presented by the Plaintiffs:
The trial court erred in holding that the original plaintiffs and cross-defendants (Bill R. Jones and wife, Jean W. Jones) are entitled only to $40,000.00 of underinsured 1 motorist coverage, rather than to $160,000.00 which represents the total amount of underinsured motorist coverage for which Jones' deceased was insured under four (4) separate automobile liability policies at the date of his death.
The material facts are succinctly stated in the Plaintiffs' brief as follows:
Bill and Jean Jones' son, Steven, was killed in an automobile accident on September 23, 1979, while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and negligently driven by Wendell Scott Mulkey. Mulkey at the time of the accident was covered by an automobile insurance policy issued by Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company of Atlanta, Georgia, providing liability insurance coverage with limits of $10,000.00 for any one person in an accident. 2 In addition, at the time of his death Jones' deceased son was insured with underinsured motorist coverage under four (4) separate insurance policies issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on four (4) vehicles owned by the original plaintiffs herein, Bill and Jean Jones. These policies are identical in the terms of their underinsured motorist (UM) coverage, except as to amount of such coverage: policy no. 4446 755 F28-42 provides $50,000.00 UM coverage per person per accident; policy no. 4291 604 A01-42, provides $50,000.00; policy no. 1821 352 E11-42D provides $50,000.00; and policy no. 1821 353 E11-42B provides $10,000.00.
State Farm by counterclaim and cross action filed a claim asking the trial court to declare that it is liable only for the highest amount of UM coverage ($50,000.00) under any one of the four (4) policies previously described, less the amount of liability insurance coverage ($10,000.00) of defendant Mulkey's estate or, in other words, that it is liable only for $40,000.00 of UM coverage. The trial court so held. The Jones contend that this holding was in error, and that State Farm is liable to them for the total amount of underinsured motorist coverage, or $160,000.00.
At the hearing in the Trial Court, counsel for the Plaintiffs apparently conceded that an unreported opinion of this Court, Crisp v. Ammons, filed at Knoxville March 14, 1978, which held contra to his position, was dispositive of the issue. That case, after reviewing the various pronouncements of the appellate courts on the subject, concluded that under the applicable statute, now T.C.A. 56-7-1205, and the terms of the policy, which are identical to the policies in question in the case at bar, stacking or pyramiding was not permitted, and, in addition, that the insurer was entitled to credit for the payments made by the liability carrier of the host driver. At the trial level, counsel insisted that Crisp was at variance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., S.F. 24782
... ... 4, ante) have statutes which expressly permit anti-stacking clauses. (See Davenport v. Aid Ins. Co. (Mutual) (Iowa 1983) 334 N.W.2d 711 and Jones v. Mulkey (Tenn.App.1981) 620 S.W.2d 498.) Ohio passed the statute from which we quote in footnote 4, ante, in 1980. With respect to losses ... ...
-
State v. Branam
...trial and genuinely disputed by the parties. Id. at 768; Fine v. Lawless, 140 Tenn. 453, 205 S.W. 124 (1918); see also Jones v. Mulkey, 620 S.W.2d 498 (Tenn.App.1981). But, the facts that Branam now presses upon us, if his allegations are proven to be correct, concern a matter that was not ......
-
Connolly v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
...prior case law interpreting the statute and the statutory purpose must be examined to determine the legislative intent. Jones v. Mulkey, 620 S.W.2d 498 (Tenn.App.1981) (faced with issue whether four underinsurance policies should be stacked, court, rather than relying upon ambiguous statuto......
-
Duncan v. Duncan
...the pleadings of another case are irrelevant to the case on appeal, a Rule 14 motion is appropriately denied. Jones v. Mulkey, 620 S.W.2d 498 (Tenn.App.1981) involved an action brought by the plaintiffs for insurance benefits or policies covering the plaintiffs' insured deceased son. The de......