ÿWPC´ 1# ¾UNÉ % 0(w@E4…™¨ 0l° 0DÆ` 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0d AQg B¸ 0DÕ 0@ 0DY U> D/Û B) B3 D3P DCƒ AMÆ U* = )?ûhv~cvÓá˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ –— ˜ ™ š › œÓ€©¬n~<$3|x¬((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman'''÷ÿ dxd% Line 7 düÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd&&&&7Border 1dd ")Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òMay€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð56„7„1201(a)(1)€(1994)€(providing€that€the€limits€of€UM€coverage€ð ðshall€beÏequal€to€the€bodily€injury€liability€limits€stated€in€the€policyðð).Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€56„7„1201(a)(2)€provides€thatÌÌà8 àà8 à[A]ny€named€insured€may€reject€in€writing€such€uninsured€motoristÏcoverage€completely€or€select€lower€limits€of€such€coverage€but€notÏless€than€the€minimum€coverage€limits€in€ðð55„12„107.€€AnyÏdocument€signed€by€the€named€insured€or€legal€representative€whichÏinitially€rejects€such€coverage€or€selects€lower€limits€shall€be€bindingÏupon€every€insured€to€whom€such€policy€applies,€and€shall€beÏconclusively€presumed€to€become€a€part€of€the€policy€or€contractÏwhen€issued€or€delivered,€irrespective€of€whether€physicallyÏattached€thereto....ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð56„7„1201(a)(2)€(1994).ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€œTENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌÙ€ ÙßR€*,)A1-j|‚` Å `€€@ÿRßà à)Ìò òRANDALL€RAY€FLEMINGó ó,à à)à àMadison€County€Circuit€CourtÌà à)à àNos.€C„96„117€and€C„96„122Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àÌà à)Ìò òJACQUELINE€YIó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant.à à)Ìà à)ÌANDà à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9706„CV„00129Ìà à)Ìò òJACK€DAVIS,€JR.ó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee,à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)Ìà à)Ìò òJACQUELINE€YIó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant.à à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Madison€County€at€Jackson.Ìò òHonorable€Whit€LaFon,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òRobert€V.€Reddingó ó,€WALDROP€&€HALL,€P.A.,€Jackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellant€Haulers€Insurance€Company,€Inc.ÌÌò òFloyd€S.€Flippinó óÌò òB.€Chadwick€Rickmanó óÌADAMS,€RYAL€&€FLIPPIN,€Humboldt,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendant€Jacqueline€Yi.ÌÌò òThomas€A.€Travaglinió ó,€Madison,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee€Randall€Fleming.ÌÌò òR.€N.€(Bo)€Tayloró ó,€Goodlettsville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee€Jack€Davis,€Jr.ÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òLILLARD,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àWe€granted€the€partiesðð€joint€Rule9€T.R.A.P.€application€to€determine€the€validityÏof€a€provision€contained€in€an€automobile€insurance€policy€issued€by€Appellant€Haulers€InsuranceÏCompany.€€The€provision€at€issue€purported€to€limit€the€amount€of€uninsured/underinsuredÏmotorist€coverage€available€to€an€injured€insured€in€certain€cases€to€ð ðthe€highest€limit€of€uninsuredÏmotorists€coverage€on€an€auto€owned€by€the€insured.ðð€€Inasmuch€as€the€named€insured,€ValueÏAuto€Mart,€Inc.,€did€not€select€lower€limits€of€such€coverage€in€writing€as€required€by€this€stateððsÏuninsured/underinsured€motorist€statutes,€we€conclude€that€the€provision€is€invalid€and,€thus,€weÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€Haulersðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€this€issue.ÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€these€summary€judgment€proceedings,€the€following€facts€wereÏundisputed.€€In€April€1995,€Plaintiff/Appellee€Randall€Ray€Fleming€was€involved€in€an€automobileÏaccident€while€he€was€driving€an€automobile€owned€by€the€named€insured,€Auto€Mart.€ÏPlaintiff/Appellee€Jack€Davis,€Jr.,€was€a€passenger€in€the€Auto€Mart€automobile.€€The€driver€of€theÏother€automobile,€Defendant/Appellee€Jacqueline€Yi,€was€allegedly€at€fault€in€the€accident.€€Yi,Ïhowever,€was€considered€to€be€an€underinsured€motorist€because€her€automobile€insurance€policyÏprovided€for€the€minimum€uninsured/underinsured€motorist€coverages€of€$25,000€per€person€andÏ$50,000€per€accident.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€55„12„102(12)(C)(ii),€55„12„107(a)€(1993).€€Accordingly,ÏFleming€and€Davis€sought€to€recover€their€respective€damages€under€the€uninsured/underinsuredÏmotorist(UM)€provisions€of€Auto€Martððs€automobile€insurance€policy.€€Neither€Fleming€nor€DavisÏhad€an€individual€automobile€insurance€policy.ÌÌà àAuto€Martððs€policy,€as€issued€by€Haulers,€provided€both€liability€and€UMÏcoverages€in€the€amount€of€$300,000.€€As€pertinent,€however,€the€policy€purported€to€limit€theÍamount€of€UM€coverage€available€when€an€insured€was€injured€while€occupying€an€automobile€notÏowned€by€the€insured.€€Specifically,€the€policy€contained€the€following€provision:ÌÌÓÓà8 àÔ&  ÔD.à àLIMIT€OF€INSURANCEÌÌà8 àà à....Ô'  ÔÌÌà8 àà à2.à0 àThe€most€we€will€pay€for€all€damages€resulting€fromÏð ðbodily€injuryðð€to€an€ð ðinsuredðð€when€the€ð ðinsuredðð€isÏð ðoccupyingðð€an€ð ðautoðð€not€owned€by€the€ð ðinsured,ððÏor€is€not€ð ðoccupyingðð€any€ð ðauto,ðð€is€the€highest€limitÏof€uninsured€motorists€coverage€on€an€ð ðautoðð€ownedÏby€the€ð ðinsured.ðð€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àCiting€this€policy€provision,€Haulers€denied€UM€coverage€to€Fleming€and€DavisÏand€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€the€coverage€issue.€€For€purposes€of€its€summary€judgmentÏmotion,€Haulers€conceded€that€both€Fleming€and€Davis€met€the€definition€of€an€ð ðinsuredðð€under€theÏpolicy,€and€that€both€insureds€sustained€damages€in€excess€of€the€amount€available€under€YiððsÏpolicy.€€Haulers€contended,€however,€that€neither€Fleming€nor€Davis€were€covered€under€AutoÏMartððs€policy€because€neither€insured€had€UM€coverage€on€a€self„owned€automobile.€€The€trialÏcourt€denied€Haulersðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€thus€precipitating€this€Rule9€application.€€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€the€law€is€well„established€that€ð ðany€statute€applicable€to€an€insuranceÏpolicy€becomes€part€of€the€policy€and€such€statutory€provisions€override€and€supersede€anything€inÏthe€policy€repugnant€to€the€provisions€of€the€statute.ðð€€ò òòòHermitage€Health&€Life€Ins.€Co.v.ÏCagleó óóó,€420€S.W.2d€591,€594€(Tenn.€App.€1967).€€In€this€regard,€all€provisions€of€this€stateððsÏUM€statutes,€as€a€matter€of€law,€become€provisions€of€all€automobile€insurance€policies€issued€forÏdelivery€in€Tennessee.€€ò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€78,€82€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Where€thereÏis€a€conflict€between€a€statutory€provision€and€a€policy€provision,€the€statutory€provision€mustÏprevail.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€This€appeal,€therefore,€requires€us€to€determine€whether€the€policy€provision€at€issueÏviolates€this€stateððs€UM€statutes.ÌÌà àAs€we€stated€in€ò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€78€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€theÏlanguage€of€the€UM€statutes€ð ðis€clear€and€unequivocal€that€every€automobile€liability€policy€issuedÏfor€delivery€in€this€state€shall€include€uninsured€motorist€coverage€with€limits€equal€to€the€bodilyÏinjury€liability€limits,€unless€the€coverage€is€rejected€by€the€named€insured.ðð€€ò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€at€81€(citing€T.C.A.€ðð56„7„1201).× ƒ- ××  ×€€Under€the€UM€statutes,€a€named€insured€mayÏreject€UM€coverage€or€select€UM€limits€which€are€lower€than€a€policyððs€liability€limits.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏT.C.A.€ðð56„7„1201(a)(2)€(1994).× ƒ. ××  ×€€In€order€to€do€so,€however,€the€insured€must€reject€suchÏcoverage€or€select€such€lower€limits€in€writing,€and€the€writing€must€be€made€a€part€of€the€policy.€Ïò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€81.€€This€writing€is€the€only€way€that€a€named€insured€mayÏeliminate€or€reduce€a€policyððs€UM€coverage.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,€the€provisions€of€the€subject€automobile€insurance€policyÏdid€not€expressly€include€UM€coverage€for€vehicles€based€in€Tennessee.€€ò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€at€80.€€Nevertheless,€this€court€held€that€the€policy€provided€UM€coverage€because€theÏnamed€insured,€Holiday€Inns,€had€not€effectively€rejected€UM€coverage€as€required€by€the€UMÏstatutes.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€81.€€We€similarly€conclude€that€the€policy€issued€by€Haulers€in€this€case€providesÏUM€coverage€in€an€amount€equal€to€the€policyððs€liability€limits,€$300,000.€€As€required€by€law,€theÍsubject€policy€initially€provided€UM€coverage€with€limits€equal€to€the€policyððs€liability€limits,Ï$300,000;€however,€the€policy€then€purported€to€lower€the€$300,000€limits€of€UM€coverage€inÏcertain€situations,€such€as€when€the€injured€insured€was€not€occupying€an€automobile€owned€byÏthe€insured€or€when€the€injured€insured€was€not€occupying€any€automobile.€€The€record€containsÏno€evidence€that€the€named€insured,€Auto€Mart,€ever€signed€any€document€selecting€UM€limitsÏwhich€were€lower€than€the€policyððs€$300,000€liability€limits,€nor€does€the€record€contain€evidenceÏthat€Auto€Mart€signed€any€document€signifying€its€understanding€that€the€policy€provided€for€lowerÏUM€limits€in€certain€situations.€€In€accordance€with€ò òòòDunnv.€Hackettó óóó,€therefore,€we€hold€that€theÏpolicy€provision€at€issue€does€not€effectively€lower€the€policyððs€UM€limits€in€the€describedÏsituations.ÌÌà àIn€contending€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€its€motion€for€summary€judgment,ÏHaulers€cites€several€cases€in€which€the€courts€of€this€state€upheld€policy€provisions€whichÏexcluded€UM€coverage€in€certain€situations€or€provisions€which€reduced€an€insuredððs€recovery€byÏamounts€received€from€other€sources.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòDockinsv.€Balboa€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€764€S.W.2d€529,Ï529€(Tenn.€1989)€(upholding€policy€provision€which€excluded€coverage€for€ð ðdamages€because€ofÏbodily€injury€caused€by€a€motor€vehicle€owned€by€[the€insured]€or€a€family€memberðð);Ïò òòòRutherfordv.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€608€S.W.2d€843,€845€(Tenn.€1980)Ï(noting€validity€of€provision€which€excluded€coverage€for€ð ðbodily€injury€or€other€damages€withÏrespect€to€which€the€insured€had,€without€written€consent€of€the€company,€made€settlement€withÏany€person€legally€liable€thereforðð);€ò òòòHillv.€Nationwide€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€535€S.W.2d€327,Ï329€(Tenn.€1976)€(upholding€provision€which€excluded€coverage€for€bodily€injury€to€an€insuredÏwhile€riding€in€another€family€vehicle€not€carried€on€the€family€liability€insurance€policy);Ïò òòòSmithv.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€456€S.W.2d€654,€655€(Tenn.€1970)€(upholding€provision€whichÏexcluded€coverage€for€hit„and„run€accidents€unless€bodily€injury€arose€out€of€ð ðphysical€contactððÏbetween€unidentified€car€and€car€which€insured€was€occupying);€ò òòòThompsonv.€Parkeró óóó,€606ÏS.W.2d€538,€539€(Tenn.€App.€1980)€(upholding€provision€which€reduced€insuredððs€recovery€forÍbodily€injury€by€amounts€received€from€owner€or€operator€of€uninsured€automobile€and€any€otherÏparty€jointly€or€severally€liable).€€Haulers€insists€that€such€provisions€are€specifically€authorized€byÏthe€UM€statutes,€which€provide€that€UM€coverage€ð ðmay€include€such€terms,€exclusions,Ïlimitations,€conditions,€and€offsets,€which€are€designed€to€avoid€duplication€of€insurance€and€otherÏbenefits.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð56„7„1205€(1994);€ò òòòseeó óóó€ò òòòHillv.€Nationwideó óóó,€535€S.W.2d€at€330;Ïò òòòThompsonv.€Parkeró óóó,€606€S.W.2d€at€540.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€foregoing€decisions€are€inapposite€to€the€present€appeal.€ÏUnlike€the€provisions€in€the€cited€cases,€the€provision€in€this€case€does€not€purport€to€be€anÏexclusionary€provision€or€an€offset€provision.€€The€provision€does€not€expressly€exclude€coverageÏin€certain€situations,€nor€does€it€reduce€an€insuredððs€recovery€by€amounts€received€from€otherÏsources.€€Instead,€the€policy€provision€at€issue€purports€to€lower€the€policyððs€limits€of€UMÏcoverage€to€a€certain€amount€as€established€by€the€provisions€of€a€separate€policy,€regardless€ofÏwhether€the€insured€has€recovered€any€amounts€from€other€sources.€€Inasmuch€as€the€namedÏinsured,€Auto€Mart,€did€not€select€such€lower€limits€in€writing€as€required€by€the€UM€statutes,€weÏhold€that€the€subject€provision€cannot€stand.ÌÌà àHaulers€also€contends€that€the€policy€provision€at€issue€is€presumptively€validÏbecause€the€provision€has€been€approved€by€this€stateððs€insurance€commissioner.€€Our€supremeÏcourt,€however,€has€made€it€clear€that,€although€the€insurance€commissionerððs€approval€is€a€factorÏto€be€considered,€such€approval€is€not€conclusive€in€determining€the€validity€of€a€policy€provision.€Ïò òòòHillv.€Nationwide€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€535€S.W.2d€327,€331€(Tenn.€1976).€€The€insuranceÏcommissionerððs€approval€will€not€render€a€policy€provision€invulnerable€if€the€provision€isÏviolative€of€existing€law.€€ò òòòSmithv.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€456€S.W.2d€654,€656€(Tenn.€1970).€ÏIn€light€of€our€conclusion€that€the€subject€provision€violates€section€56„7„1201(a)(2)€of€this€stateððsÏUM€statutes,€we€hold€that€the€provision€is€invalid,€despite€the€insurance€commissionerððs€approvalÏthereof.ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€€J.€€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.€(Concurs)