ÿWPCð …# VU:a %› 0û¡w@œ 4Ü ð 0Lÿ K 0JS  0T£ 0^÷ 0hU 0r½ 0|/ 0†« 01 1uÁ 0d6U*šB)ÄDCí AM0Ÿ}v~ BšvÓ· D3Š 0@½ 0Ný AOKÆš 0D` D/¤ BÓ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Óý,$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XûXXXÔÑ7€>‚XXdðXXdð7Ñ ÊDÊD D Ó€DÒ 3|x> ÿÿ$Large Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔHR2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ18,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò>û¥$Large Circleððà0  à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓÓò òIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  Óà@ à„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìó óÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€ex€rel.,à à)à àDavidsonÏChancery€No.€œ90„1102›€DOUGLAS€SIZEMORE,à àà àà à)ÌCOMMISSIONER€OF€COMMERCEà à)ÌAND€INSURANCEà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.€€01A01„9603„CH„00115Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€"#!;+'h|{þm` à. `€€Lß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPETROLEUM€MARKETERS€à àà à)ÌœMUTUAL›€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à à)ÌA€RISK€RETENTION€GROUP,€(CYRà à)ÌOIL€CORPORATION),à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OFÏDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,ÏCHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌò òJOHN€L.€NORRISÌHOLLINS,€WAGSTER€&€YARBROUGHÌó óSuite€2210,€424€Church€StreetÌSunTrust€CenterÌNashville,€TennessÌee€37219ÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌò òRICHARD€H.€DINKINSÌTAMMY€L.€KENNEDYÌWILLIAMS€&€DINKINSÌó ó203€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1601ÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌÌò òREVERSED€and€REMANDED.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€JUDGEÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€N€€ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓóóó óà àThe€issue€is€whether€an€insuredððs€purported€failure€to€cooperate€with€theÏinsurer€thereby€forfeiting€coverage€was€determinable€by€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€We€think€the€record€reveals€contested€issues€of€material€facts€andÏtherefore€reverse€and€remand€the€case€for€trial.Ìà àCyr€Oil€Corporation€owns€a€number€of€service€stations€in€Massachusetts.€€ToÏinsure€its€environmental€impairment€liability€it€purchased€a€policy€of€insurance€fromÏPetroleum€Marketers€Mutual€Ins›.€Co.€(Petromark),€covering€the€period€fromÏFebruary€10,€1988€to€February€10,€1989.€€This€was€a€claims„made€policy€coveringÏrisks€reported€during€the€policy€period.Ìà àOn€January€29,€1989€Cyr€learned€that€various€levels€of€contamination€existedÍat€its€locations€in€South€Dartmouth,€Walpole,€Methuen,€Somerset,€and€Stoughton,ÏMassachusetts.€€Two€days€later,€Cyr€reported€the€contamination€to€the€agent€ofÏPetromark.Ìà àPetromark€employed€Allied€Adjustment€Service€to€investigate€the€claims€filedÏby€Cyr€on€account€of€the€discovered€contamination.Ìà àIn€September€1989€Petromark€employed€another€adjusting€firm€(Wilson,ÏElser)€to€investigate€and€adjust€the€loss.Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee,€on€the€relation€of€its€Commissioner€of€CommerceÏand€Insurance,€filed€this€action€seeking€the€liquidation€of€Petromark.€€A€ReceiverÏwas€in€course€appointed,€and€on€May€3,€1990€an€Order€of€Liquidation€was€entered.Ìà àCyr€filed€five€claims€with€the€Receiver,€one€for€each€of€the€contaminatedÏlocations.€€It€is€conceded€that€the€claims€were€timely€filed.Ìà àOn€August€29,€1995,€the€Receiver€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€toÏall€five€claims€for€Cyrððs€failure€to€cooperate€with€Petromarkððs€and€the€ReceiverððsÏinvestigation€of€the€claims.€€In€support€of€the€motion,€the€Receiver€filed€the€affidavitsÏof€Richard€H.€Dinkins,€its€counsel;€J.€Reginald€Baugh,€an€adjuster€for€theÏenvironmental€claims€administrator€for€the€Receivership;€and€Jeanne€B.€Bryant,ÏSpecial€Deputy€Commissioner€for€Receiverships.€€To€each€of€these€affidavits€wereÏattached€numerous€exhibits.€€The€Petromark€policy€provides€in€œboiler„plate›Ïlanguage€œthat€›€ð ðThe€insured,€and€any€of€its€members,€partners,€officers,€directors,Ïadministrators,€stockholders€and€employees€that€the€company€deems€necessaryÏagree€to€cooperate€with€the€company€in€the€investigation,€settlement€or€defense€ofÏany€claim.ððÌà àBy€affidavit,€Jeanne€B.€Bryant€cited€the€policy€language€requiring€insureds€toÏcooperate€in€the€investigation€of€claims.€€She€made€some€œconclusory›€statementsÏabout€the€failure€of€Cyr€to€cooperate€and€the€potential€effect€of€suchÏuncooperativeness€on€the€Receiverððs€ability€to€administer€claims.€€This€affidavit€hasÏlittle€or€no€probative€effect€since€it€is€couched€in€œconclusory›,€non„specific€language.€ÏSee€òòDempsey€v.€Correct€Mfg.€Corp.,€óó755€S.W.2d€798€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€œ1988).›€Ìà àJ.€Reginald€Baugh,€an€adjuster,€deposed€that€ð ðfollow„upðð€requests€forÏinformation€were€sent€to€Cyr,€consisting€of€about€twenty€letters€or€questionnaires,Ïwhich€Cyr€ð ðdid€not€and€has€not€substantially€responded€to.ðð€€The€first€of€these€lettersÏwas€mailed€February€15,€1989€to€Cyr€at€its€Lawrence,€Massachusetts€office.€€As€weÏdeduce,€the€contamination€at€all€of€the€locations€was€caused€by€leaking€fuel€tanks,Ïand€the€information€sought€was€the€age,€size,€and€ownership€of€these€tanks,€dateÏwhen€Cyr€became€aware€of€the€leakage,€test€results,€names€of€employees€who€hadÏknowledge€of€the€œleakage,€any›€remedial€efforts,€and€related€information.€€SomewhatÏvaguely,€Baugh€deposed€that€the€requested€information€was€not€forthcoming.Ìà àCyr€filed€a€prolix€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€supported€byÏthe€affidavits€of€G.€J.€Bruett,€its€President,€and€John€L.€Norris,€its€attorney.Ìà àBruett€deposed€that€he€learned€of€the€contamination€on€January€28,€1989,Ïand€reported€claims€to€Petromarkððs€agent€in€Worcester,€Massachusetts€three€daysÏlater.€€He€testified€that€the€claims€were€investigated€by€Allied€Adjustment€ServiceÏ(employed€by€Petromark),€and€that€he€furnished€all€available€information€to€thisÏadjuster.Ìà àIn€September,€1989,€according€to€Bruett,€Petromark€employed€a€newÍadjuster,€the€Wilson,€Elser€firm,€to€provide€claims€administration€to€Petromark.€€HeÏtestified€that€all€available€information€was€again€furnished.€€He€further€testified€that€ifÏœremediation›€costs€were€within€the€policy€deductible,€the€adjusters€made€noÏinvestigation,€notwithstanding€the€likelihood€that€future€œremediation›€costs€mightÏexceed€the€deductible.€€Bruett€further€testified€that€Cyr€provided€all€the€informationÏavailable€to€it,€and€that€ð ðto€the€extent€relevant€information€was€not€furnished€to€theÏlater€adjusters€or€to€the€Receiver,€it€was€because€either€the€information€had€alreadyÏbeen€furnished€to€a€previous€adjuster€or€because€the€information€was€notÏavailable.ððÌà àJohn€L.€Norris€testified€that€he€was€employed€by€Cyr€in€1993.€€At€that€time,ÏPetromark€was€in€Receivership,€and€Norris€advised€the€Receiver€that€he€wanted€toÏð ðmake€sureðð€that€the€Receiver€had€all€of€the€available€information,€and€to€that€endÏrequested€a€meeting.€€No€response€was€ever€forthcoming;€instead,€about€two€yearsÏœlater,›€the€Receiver€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ìà àMassachusetts€and€Tennessee€law€are€not€at€odds€respecting€the€right€of€anÏinsurer€to€terminate€its€liability€œif›€the€insured€materially€breaches€the€cooperationÏprovision.€€òòœFoshee›€v.€œINA›,€óó269€œN.E.›€677€(Mass.€1971);€òòMorrison€v.€Lewis,€óó221€œN.E.›Ï401€(Mass.€1966).€€Neither€do€these€jurisdictions€differ€in€the€judicial€view€that€a€trialÏshould€not€be€conducted€by€affidavits.€€òòEvans€v.€Norfolk€and€œDedham›€Mutual€FireÏœIns›.€Co.,€óó1992€WL€48927€(Mass.€App.€1992);€òòTaylor€v.€Nashville€Banner€Co.,€óó573ÏS.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€ð ðIn€actions€on€insurance€contracts€if€there€isÏconflicting€evidence€or€evidence€from€which€œdifferent›€inferences€can€be€drawn,€theÏquestion€whether€there€has€been€a€misrepresentation,€concealment,€or€breach€ofÍwarranty€of€condition€is€one€for€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€facts,€to€be€determined€from€allÏthe€evidence,€and€this€rule€is€applicable€to€cooperation€of€the€insured€with€a€liabilityÏinsurer.ðð€€44€òòAm€œJur›óó€2037;€òòEvans,€supra.óó€œÌà à›€In€this€jurisdiction,€we€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€inÏfavor€of€the€non„moving€œparty›€and€must€deny€the€motion€if€there€is€any€dispute€as€toÏany€material,€determinative€evidence,€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusion€to€be€drawnÏfrom€all€the€evidence.€€òòRoberts€v.€Roberts,€óó845€S.W.2d€225€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòByrdÏv.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àWe€think€that€this€record€presents€an€issue€of€whether€Cyr€materiallyÏbreached€the€cooperation€clause.€€Three€different€sets€of€adjusters„investigatorsÏhave€been€involved€in€the€claims.€€As€we€deduce,€these€adjusters€apparently€didÏnot€cooperate€with€each€other€fully,€because€each€requested€the€same€boiler„plateÏinformation.€€Superimposed€is€the€affidavit€of€Bruen,€the€CEO€of€Cyr,€that€heÏfurnished€the€requested€information€to€the€extent€possible;€further€superimposed€isÏthe€affidavit€of€Norris€that€he€requested€a€conference€with€the€Receiver€to€discussÏthe€available€evidence€respecting€the€merits€of€Cyrððs€claims,€and€that€the€ReceiverÏnot€only€made€no€response,€but€two€years€later,€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€We€think€it€reasonable€to€observe€that€if€the€Receiver€really€desired€anyÏadditional€information€she€would€have€accepted€the€offer€of€Mr.€Norris€withoutÏhesitation.€Ìà àIn€summary,€this€record€is€replete€with€contested€issues€of€material€fact,€thusÏmaking€summary€judgment€inappropriate.€€The€judgment€is€accordingly€reversedÏand€the€case€remanded€for€trial.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€œreceiver€for€PetroleumÍMarketers€Mutual€Insurance€Company.›ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌW.€Frank€œCrawford›,€œPresiding€Judge€(W.S.)›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌAlan€E.€œHighers›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌà àœÌ›à àà àà àÔ% € Ôà à