ÿWPCÐ" …# VU:a %› 0û¡4œ ° 0?¿ 0Dþ B 0JJ 0T” Rè : :w@ 0^V 0h´ 0r 0|Ž 0†  0 1u U,• 0dÁU,% BQU*nB)˜DCÁ AM¹Q D3 V=“ 0@šv~ÚvÓX AO+!Æz! 0D@" D/„" B³"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ»~g XN,Nhd3|xl(ï(3Z•$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X?‰XXXÔÑ7€?‰XXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÈ€4Ø'ðHJ]Ê^Ó€j2, 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ5,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€plaintiff€alleged€fraud,€breach€of€contract,€and€violation€of€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€47„18„104,€et€seq,€butÏbriefed€only€the€issues€of€fraud€and€the€obligation€of€the€defendant€to€deal€fairly€withÏher.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€the€action€against€Allstate,€the€trial€judge€took€the€agent€to€task€forÏrecording€false€data€and€leaving€questions€unanswered.€€But€the€agent€was€not€aÏparty€to€that€litigation.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÓÓÔ% € ÔßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€LßÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌÌÌÓÓó óDIANE€GILES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.Ï03A01„9510„CV„OO348Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMICHAEL€HAYES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)à àREVERSEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌConrad€Finnell,€Cleveland,€Attorney€for€Appellant.ÌÌNora€A.€McCarthy,€Chattanooga,€Attorney€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óóóINMAN,ÏSenior€JudgeÌÌà@ àò òÌÌÓÓà àó óThis€is€a€suit€for€damages€against€an€agent€of€Allstate€Insurance€Company,Ïaccusing€him€of€fraud× ƒ+ ××  ×ò ò€ó óin€filling€out€her€application€for€a€homeowners'€policy€ofÏinsurance.€€The€motion€of€Allstate€for€summary€judgment€was€granted€upon€theÏtheory€of€òòres€judicataóó.€€This€appeal€resulted.ò òÌà@ àó óòòBACKGROUNDÌóóà àAllstate€issued€a€homeowners'€policy€to€the€plaintiff€on€December€30,€1988.€ÏOn€September€10,€1991€her€house€was€burglarized.€€She€filed€a€claim€for€theÏburglary€loss€which€Allstate€denied,€alleging€that€the€policy€was€void€òòab€initioóóÏbecause€plaintiff€made€material€misrepresentations€in€her€application€for€the€policy€Ìin€violation€of€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€56„7„103,€and€in€violation€of€the€concealment€orÏfraud€provisions€of€the€policy.Ìà àShe€filed€suit€against€Allstate€to€recover€under€the€policy.€€As€found€by€thisÏCourt,€the€principal€issue€at€the€trial€of€the€case€centered€around€the€fact€that€sixÏmonths€prior€to€applying€for€the€Allstate€policy€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€loss€by€fire€onÏthe€same€house€insured€by€Allstate.€€Her€then€insurance€carrier€paid€her€in€excessÏof€$100,000.00€as€a€result€of€that€fire,€and€notified€her€that€it€would€not€renew€theÏpolicy.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€had€her€house€repaired€following€which€she€shopped€around€forÏcoverage,€finally€obtaining€the€Allstate€policy.€€After€the€loss€occurred€and€the€claimÏwas€submitted,€Allstate€discovered€that€the€plaintiff€had€not€revealed€the€prior€lossÍand€refusal€of€another€carrier€to€renew.€€This€Court€agreed€with€the€trial€judge€thatÏthe€policy€was€void,€stating:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà à"Upon€the€trial€of€the€€case,€there€was€a€sharp€dispute€in€theÏtestimony€of€Ms.€Giles€and€Mr.€Michael€Hayes,€the€Allstate€agentÏwho€took€the€application€for€insurance,€as€to€what€Ms.€Giles€told€himÏor€failed€to€tell€him€about€the€fire€and€refusal€of€Ms.€Giles'€insuranceÏcompany€to€renew€her€policy.Ìà àMs.€Giles€testified€that€after€the€fire€and€while€her€house€wasÏbeing€rebuilt,€her€insurance€company€notified€her€it€would€not€renewÏthe€policy€when€it€expired€in€December.€€After€receiving€this€notice,Ïshe€contacted€a€number€of€insurance€agents€about€writing€coverageÏfor€her.€€She€testified€that€when€she€called€Mr.€Hayes€she€told€him€inÏtheir€initial€conversation€about€her€fire€loss€and€her€insuranceÏcarrier's€notifying€her€it€would€not€renew€her€policy€when€it€expired.€ÏShe€also€testified€Mr.€Hayes€came€to€her€house€and€took€herÏapplication.€€He€asked€her€the€pertinent€questions€on€the€applicationÏand€she€gave€correct€answers.€€After€answering€the€questions,€sheÏsigned€the€application€without€reading€it.€€Although€she€was€given€aÏcarbon€copy€of€the€application€at€the€time€it€was€signed,€she€did€notÏknow€the€application€contained€incorrect€answers€until€after€her€lossÏhad€occurred.Ìà àMr.€Hayes€testified€Ms.€Giles€did€not€tell€him€in€their€initialÏtelephone€conversation€about€her€fire€loss€or€that€her€insuranceÏcarrier€had€refused€to€renew€her€policy.€€He€testified€he€filled€out€theÏapplication€based€on€the€information€she€gave€him€and,€had€sheÏdisclosed€the€correct€information,€the€policy€would€not€have€beenÏissued.Ìà àThe€court€resolved€this€issue€in€favor€of€Ms.€Giles€but€held€itÏwas€not€controlling€in€the€case.€€The€court€found€the€case€of€òòHardinÏv.€Combined€Insurance€Company€of€America,€óó528€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1975)€to€be€controlling.€€In€his€determination€of€the€case,€theÏcourt€said:€€"òòHardin€against€Combined€Insurance€Company€ofÏAmericaóó€found€at€528€S.W.2d€at€page€31,€which€is€a€case€almost€onÏall€fours€of€what€we€have€here.€€The€only€difference€is€that€it€involvedÏa€policy€application€for€life€insurance€and€this€involved€a€policyÏapplication€for€homeowners€coverage."€€"Ms.€Giles€signed€anÏapplication€that€contained€misrepresentations.€€And€there€is€noÏquestion€from€the€experience€of€this€Court,€more€importantly€fromÏMr.€Brantley€[underwriter€for€Allstate]€that€it€was€a€materialÏmisrepresentation.€€There€would€have€been€no€policy€issued€hadÏthe€correct€information€been€given."ÌÑ  Ñà àThe€trial€court€found€the€issues€in€favor€of€the€Defendant.€€TheÍplaintiff€has€appealed,€saying€the€court€was€in€error.€€We€cannotÏagree,€and€affirm€for€the€reasons€herein€stated.Ìà àAfter€the€application€had€been€filled€out€by€the€agent,€it€wasÏgiven€to€Ms.€Giles.€€She€testified€she€signed€it€but€did€not€read€itÏbefore€signing€it."ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àMs.€Giles€sought€to€avoid€the€application€of€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€56„7„103.€ÏShe€insisted€that€she€correctly€answered€questions€about€her€previous€fire€lossesÏand€the€refusal€of€her€insurance€carrier€to€renew€her€policy,€"but€the€agent€[Hayes]Ïlisted€incorrect€answers€on€the€application."€€This€insistence€was€rejected;€we€heldÏthat€if€an€insured€failed€to€read€the€contract€or€learn€of€its€contents€she€signs€at€herÏperil€and€will€be€presumed€to€know€its€contents.€€òòSee€Giles€v.€Allstate€InsuranceÏCo.,€óó871€S.W.2d€154€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ìà@ àòòTHE€€PRESENT€€ACTIONóóÌà àMs.€Giles€shifted€her€focus€to€agent€Hayes€during€the€pendency€of€theÏappeal€by€filing€this€action€against€him.€€She€had€sought€to€avoid€the€statutoryÏdefense€by€claiming€that€although€she€answered€Hayes'€questions€truthfully,€heÏmanuscripted€them€otherwise€without€her€knowledge.€€She€did€not€read€theÏapplication,€according€to€her€testimony,€and€although€she€was€given€a€copy€of€it€atÏthe€time€it€was€signed,€she€said€that€she€did€not€know€of€the€incorrect€answers€untilÏafter€the€burglary€loss€occurred.Ìà àAsserting€the€binding€force€of€the€judgment€in€the€case€against€Allstate,€theÏdefendant€Hayes,€as€material€here,€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€the€basis€ofÏòòres€judicata.€€óóThe€trial€judge€ruledÌÒ ` ÒÒ ½ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓ"€.€.€.The€Court€finds€the€issues€of€whether€or€not€the€applicableÏstatutes€of€limitation€bar€the€claims€for€fraud€and€breach€of€contractÍare€moot,€as€this€Court€finds€all€claims€characterized€as€fraud€orÏbreach€of€contract€are€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicata.óó€€TheÏissues€before€this€Court€have€been€thoroughly€litigated€previouslyÏin€trial€courts€and€before€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€Those€Courts€haveÏfound€the€plaintiff€is€bound€by€the€content€of€the€application€forÏinsurance€she€signed€even€though€she€did€not€read€it€.€.€."€ÌÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  Óà@ àòòD€I€S€P€O€S€I€T€I€O€NÌÌÓÓóóà àWe€must€respectfully€disagree€with€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€court,€becauseÏthe€issue€of€whether€the€agent€committed€an€actionable€fraud€on€the€plaintiff€hasÏnot€been€litigated€in€an€action€wherein€the€agent€was€a€party€and€subject€to€havingÏliability€fastened€upon€him.× ƒ, ××  ×€€"If€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€is€to€apply€the€prior€suitÏit€must€be€between€the€same€parties,€in€the€same€capacities,€and€touching€theÏsame€subject€matter."€€òòGrange€Mutual€Insurance€Co.€v.€Walker,€óó652€S.W.2d€908Ï(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€This€is€familiar,€settled€law;€appellee€counters€by€arguing€thatÏissue€preclusion,€a€generic€term€including€òòres€judicata,óó€requires€an€identity€orÏmutuality€of€claims€creating€the€right€of€action€and€identity€of€evidence€necessaryÏto€sustain€each€action,€which€are€present€in€the€case€at€bar.€€We€no€not€agree;Ïapart€from€the€lack€of€identity€of€parties,€the€issue€against€Allstate€was€whether€theÏplaintiff€had€submitted€an€application€for€insurance€containing€false€data.€€There€isÏno€doubt€that€she€did;€she€admits€the€fact,€but€claimed,€in€both€trials,€that€althoughÏshe€answered€the€agent's€inquiries€truthfully,€he€recorded€them€falsely.€€ThisÏaction€exonerated€the€master,€but€does€it€exonerate€the€agent?€€We€hold€that€theÍexoneration€of€the€master€from€liability€does€not,€òòipso€facto,óó€immunize€the€agent.€ÏThe€liability€of€the€agent€was€not€decided,€could€not€have€been€decided,€becauseÏhe€was€not€a€party€to€the€Allstate€case.€€Both€the€trial€court€and€this€CourtÏconsequently€confined€themselves€to€the€issue€of€the€liability€of€the€insuranceÏcompany.€€òòSee€Dubuque€Fire€&€Marine€Ins.€Co.€v.€Wilsonóó,€213€Fed€2d€115€(4thÏCir.,€1954).€€The€issue€at€bar€is€whether€the€agent€perpetrated€a€fraud€on€theÏplaintiff€by€willfully€misrepresenting€her€responses€or€knowingly€leaving€theÏinquiries€unanswered€to€her€detriment.€€We€are€not€prepared€to€hold€that€in€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case€the€plaintiff€waived€the€agent's€alleged€fraud€by€failingÏto€read€the€application.€As€to€this€issue,€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€a€trial.€Ìà àThe€trial€court's€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€trial,Ïwith€costs€to€the€appellee.à ààH³³#³ààH³³#³ààH³³#³àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àÌÔ% € ÔÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ jÿ ÒÓ K Óà àÌà àÌà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌó óDIANE€GILES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€03A01„9510„CV„OO348Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMICHAEL€HAYES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)à àREVERSED€and€REMANDEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€TÌÌà àó óóóThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€the€Circuit€CourtÌÌof€Hamilton€County€and€briefs€filed€on€behalf€of€the€respective€parties.€€Upon€ÌÌÓÓconsideration€thereof,€this€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€there€is€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment.Ìà àIt€is€therefore,€ORDERED€and€ADJUDGED€by€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€€ÌCosts€are€assessed€to€the€appellee.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAM