WPC # VUNa % 0( 0l 0DI w@ 4   0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>B)DC AM;U* D3 Bb 0@gJv~vo AOB 0DW D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($((3$ !      0  (#$  0   -P./D0D1D24P5g6g7Ӏ~| (3|xB2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd-%C << G<  9p`(Arial !#  ''   YYY FILED'X April4,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk  !#d##  $       Atthetimeofthefilingofthecomplaint,MargieFusonwasaresidentofKentucky.++++'dxd d X !#d##  $       TheappelleesmotionforsummaryjudgmentspecificallyrequestedthecourttodeclarethatAtlantaCasualtywasobligatedtopaythemanadditional$25,000underthepolicy.("$     @ !#d##  $       Thepolicydefines Youasthe namedinsuredasshownintheDeclarations;and[t]hespouseifaresidentofthesamehousehold.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##    ` ` pX\RA'\7XXdd7L&(%;+'h|`  `L@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATKNOXVILLE@ _______________________________________________________  ) ATLANTACASUALTYCOMPANY,  ) ClaiborneCountyCircuitCourt ) No.7335̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.No.03A019507CV00232 ) MARGIEETTAFUSON,DAMON  ) LEEFUSON,andSHANNONNICOLE  ) FUSON , ) )̀Defendants/Appellees. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofClaiborneCountyatTazewell. HonorableConradE.Troutman,Jr.,Judge StevenL.Hurdle , JeffreyIngran, ARNETT,DRAPER&HAGOOD,Knoxville,TennesseeAttorneysforPlaintiff/Appellant. DennisM.Robertson ,Tazewell,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendants/Appellees.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDDISMISSED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) HIGHERS,J. :(Concurs) 7XXdXXd7 ` ` X  ThisappealstemsfromadeclaratoryjudgmentactionfiledbyAppellant,AtlantaCasualtyCompany(AtlantaCasualty),seekingadeterminationofwhetheranautomobileinsurancepolicyissuedbyAtlantaCasualtytoDamonP.Fuson,nowdeceased,affordsuninsuredmotoristcoveragetotheappellees,MargieEttaFuson,survivingspouseofthedeceased,andtheirtwominorchildren,DamonLeeandShannonNicoleFuson(hereinafter theFusons).Thetrialcourtentertainedmotionsforsummaryjudgmentfiledbybothparties.ThetrialcourtdeniedAppellantsmotion,butenteredsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheappellees,findingthattheinsurancepolicyinquestionaffordsthemcoverage.Forreasonshereinafterdetailed,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Thefactsofthiscaseareundisputed.OnSeptember17,1992,thedecedentwasapassengerinanautomobiledrivenbyMichaelD.ShockeyandownedbyJosieLee,neitherofwhomcarriedliabilityinsuranceatthetime.TheautomobilewasinvolvedinasinglecaraccidentinOhio,resultinginthedeathofMr.Fuson.Noneoftheappelleeswereinvolvedintheaccident.Onthedateoftheaccident,Mr.FusonwasinsuredunderanautomobileinsurancepolicyissuedϜhimbyAppellantinTennessee,whileheandtheFusonswereresidentsofClaiborneCounty,Tennessee. )   כ Theinsurancepolicyidentifiesthedeceasedasthenamedinsured.ThepolicyperiodwasfromApril27,1992toOctober27,1992.Itslimitsofliabilityundertheuninsuredmotoristprovisionsfor bodilyinjuryare $25,000perperson$50,000peracc.Thepolicydefines bodilyinjuryas bodilyharm,sicknessordisease,includingdeaththatresults. Inaccordancewiththepolicy,AtlantaCasualtytendered$25,000tothedeceasedsestate.ThisdeclaratoryjudgmentactionwasfiledwhenadisputearosebetweenthepartiesastowhetherAtlantaCasualtyisfurtherobligatedundertheuninsuredmotoristprovisionstomakeadditionalpaymentstotheFusonsbeyondthe$25,000perpersonlimit. Inruling,thetrialcourtfound:8 [T]hat[Appellees]MotionforSummaryJudgment,totheextentthatitrequeststheentryofanOrderdenyingplaintiffthedeclaratoryjudgmentsought,iswellfoundedandisthereforegranted.Further,thecourtfindsthattheuninsuredmotoristprovisionsoftheinsurancepolicyissuedbyAtlantaCasualtytoDamonP.Fusonprovidescoveragetothe[appellees]fortheaccidentoccurringinOhiowhichisthesubjectofthiscause.Totheextentthatthe[appellees],throughtheirMotionforSummaryJudgment,seekadditionalrelief,theirMotionisdenied. ,   ׀ Theissueonappeal,asstatedbyAppellant,isasfollows:#` ` h X#8  DoesAtlantaCasualty,whichissuedasplitlimitsuninsuredmotoristpolicytoDamonP.Fuson,andwhichpaidtheperpersonlimitsofthatpolicytohisestateduetoawreckwithanuninsuredmotorist,oweanyadditionalcontractualdutiestohisfamily,noneofwhomwere:1)namedinsureds;2)injuredinthewreck;3)occupantsofthevehicleinthewreck;or4)ownersofaninsuredvehicle,giventhatT.C.A.5671201(b)providesthatonlyinjuredoccupantsofavehiclecanrecoverandthenonlyfromapolicycoveringavehicletheyown? Thepartiesagreethatunderoursupremecourtsdecisionin Hatawayv.McKinley ,830S.W.2d53(Tenn.1992),Ohiolawwouldmostlikelygovernthetortiousaspectsofthiscase.UnderOhiolaw,eachsurvivor(survivingspouse,childrenandparentsofthedeceased)isstatutorilyaffordedaseparateclaimtorecoverdamagesthattheyhave rebuttablypresumedtohavesufferedbyreasonofthewrongfuldeath.R.C.2125.02(A)(1); Woodv.Shepard ,526N.E.2d1089(Ohio1988).Theparties,likewise,agree,andcorrectlyso,thatforpurposesofconstruingandinterpretingtheinsurancecontractatissuehere,Tennesseelawshallgovern. SeeOhioCasualtyIns.Co.v.TravelersIndemnityCo. ,493S.W.2d465(Tenn.1973).Thewellsettledruleinthisjurisdictionisthatinsurancecontractsaretobeconstruedunderthesamerulesofconstructionandenforcementapplicabletocontractsgenerally. AllstateIns.Co.v.Wilson ,856S.W.2d706,708(Tenn.App.1992).Thus,itisthedutyofthisCourttoenforcetheinsurancepolicyaswritten. SeeSpearsv.CommercialIns.Co. ,866S.W.2d544,548(Tenn.App.1993).Thepolicylanguageshouldbeconstruedinlightofreasonandgivenitsplain,ordinarymeaning. Demontbreunv.CNAIns.Companies ,822S.W.2d619,621(Tenn.App.1991).Itshouldnotbegivenaforcedconstructionthatrendersitineffectiveorextendsitscoveragebeyonditsintendedscope. Demontbreun ,822S.W.2dat621.Anyambiguitiesaretoberesolvedagainsttheinsurer,whodraftedthepolicy. Seee.g.,Palmerv.StateFarm ,614S.W.2d788,789(Tenn.1981).Wheretherearenoambiguities,wemusttaketheordinarymeaningofthewordsused,andfavorneitherparty.Wecannotcreateanambiguitywherenoneexists. OmahaProperty&CasualtyIns.Co.v.Johnson ,866S.W.2d539,541(Tenn.App.1993). Thepolicyatissuecontainsthefollowingendorsement(FormT05)reading,asherepertinent:8 UNINSUREDMOTORISTSCOVERAGETENNESSEE 8 PartCisreplacedbythefollowing:8 INSURINGAGREEMENT 8  A.Wewillpaydamageswhichan insuredislegallyentitledtorecoverfromtheowneroroperatorofan uninsuredmotorvehiclebecauseof:8 8 1. Bodilyinjurysustainedbyan insuredandcausedbyanaccident;8 8 ....8  Theownersoroperatorsliabilityforthesedamagesmustariseoutoftheownership,maintenanceoruseofthe uninsuredmotorvehicle.....8  B. Insuredasusedinthisendorsementmeans:8 8 1.You .   כorany familymember.8 8 8 8 2.Anyotherperson occupying yourcoveredauto.8 8 3.Anypersonfordamagesthatpersonisentitledtorecoverbecauseof bodilyinjurytowhichthiscoverageappliessustainedbyan[sic]persondescribedin1.or2.above. Applyingtheforegoingrulesofconstruction,wefindthepolicyunambiguousaswritten.Itclearlyincludesas insuredstheappellees,whowerethenamedinsuredsspouseϜand/orhis familymember[s]atthetimeoftheaccident.Asinsureds,theyareentitledtothosedamageswhichtheyarelegallyentitledtorecoverfromShockeyand/orLee(withinpolicylimits,ofcourse)forthebodilyinjuriessustainedbythedeceased,an insured,inaccordancewithPartA1.Asheretoforestated,Ohiolawgrantstheappelleesseparateanddistinctclaimsfromthoseoftheestateagainsttheuninsuredmotorists.Thus,ifeitherorbothbeprovenliable,theappelleeswouldbe legallyentitledtorecovertheirownseparatedamagesasaresultoftheaccident.PartB3alsoprovidescoveragetotheappelleesforthosedamagestheyare entitledtorecoverbecauseofbodilyinjuriessustainedby,inthiscase,Mr.Fuson. AtlantaCasualtyarguesthatT.C.A.5671201(b)effectivelyeliminatesanycoveragefortheappelleesunderthepresentcircumstances.Thestatute,asitreadin1992,provides:8  5671201.RequirementsandtypesofcoveragePresumptions. 8 ....8  ....Withrespecttobodilyinjurytoaninsuredwhileoccupyinganautomobilenotownedbytheinjuredparty,thefollowingprioritiesofrecoveryunderuninsuredmotoristcoverageshallapply:8  (1)Theuninsuredmotoristcoverageonthevehicleinwhichtheinjuredpartywasanoccupantshallbetheprimaryuninsuredmotoristcoverage;8  (2)Shouldthatprimaryuninsuredmotoristcoveragebeexhaustedduetotheextentofcompensatorydamages,thentheinjuredoccupantmayrecoverasexcessfromtheinsuranceonthevehicleownedbytheinsuredthatprovidesthehighestlimitsofuninsuredmotoristcoverage.Innoinstanceshallmorethanone(1)coveragefrommorethanone(1)uninsuredmotoristpolicybeavailableasexcessoverandabovetheprimarycoverageavailabletotheinjuredoccupant.&` ` XxX& Appellantassertsthatbecausenoneoftheappelleeswere injuredoccupant[s]orownedavehicleinsuredbyAtlantaCasualty,theyarestatutorilydeniedcoverage.Wefindthisstatuteinapplicabletothecaseatbarbecauseitclearlyaddresses prioritiesofrecovery.Suchisnottheissuecurrentlybeforeus. WeconcludethatAppelleesareaffordedcoverageunderthepolicyastotheaccidentinquestionasamatteroflaw.We,therefore,affirmthesummaryjudgmententeredintheirfavorbythetrialcourtanddismissthiscause.CostsareassessedagainstAtlantaCasualtyCompany,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` Xӛ __________________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________HIGHERS,J.(Concurs)