ÿWPCC Ùˆœ8]ÙšÅè¾Í þ¼b ]ó±á*,@?ýS›N#,â:™šÅÀÀ®¦r$„ÍBO·ºõÿunïÇn)ó#MXŒ’0c«ƒx¹&ÌßÒu"VÍËr&}THxá?¶ÄÀ}C =…ÁT‚¦N¤–Ñ ©,v.D"ʶàrÈô`çÖÝáX¾§€Šäq™àóo„$i Á£y¥n³~8¾¨ôË ô„| _¿!òìÿ¦›bRP³ñÓn?„u8­*´Öª”´GÊ UÒ©óÃWl¿÷UœK¤9RýXÓnxT’Å톄¨šYسi{˨!€LÎñ0K§¿Ñ·B=½c:»;®øÊ9ÕAáÜ6gzixêB¦ìÉ´'„žêòÔÒ8ýŸíñv¥i*ßå+2‡ÜæcÁXXÁ‹x<-´– LÁ…¸£®*NÅ6Å3\Ç…¦ÿ»¹¼ªLKQ“Ú6YÂHFâ3‰m]j±5?édW@ˆY#áWå;&&ú¢­X?ÁÛ”zß}ƒxø éJОúsL(Ï`¿|›¯÷¥Ç²š©Ã¦ùÀ¡ïQùs @/ÆŸÏk\»ÝÚQ¹JêF%¢ŠVS/Œeuµ`¸êkò§Jì",*# LUNW %¥ 0(«w@Ó4'UN6UN„Ò 0lÚ 0DF"Š?¬ ?ë*U:,,,,,^fffffffff BÄ AQáÆ2 0Dø 0D< 0D€€ D/ÄÄ Bó D3˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ³D´+µ¶D·¸D¹ºV»Ó€Å©yË&3|xÅ'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€majority€of€courts€have€interpreted€ð ðthe€insuredðð€in€an€exclusionary€clause€to€refer€to€Ð ° Ða€particular€insured€and€extended€liability€coverage€to€an€innocent€insured.€€ò òòòSee€American€StatesÐ  ð ÐIns.€Co.€v.€Borboróóó ó,€826€F.2d€888,€894€(9th€Cir.€1987);€òòò òWestern€Cas.€&€Sur.€Co.€v.€AponaugÐ à ÐMfg.€Co.óóó ó,€197€F.2d€673€(5th€Cir.€1952);€òòò òArenson€v.€Natððl€Automobile€&€Cas.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€45€Cal.Ð €Ð Ð2d€81,€286€P.2d€816€(1955);€òòò òFire€Ins.€Exchange€v.€Altierióóó ó,€235€Cal.€App.€3d€1352,€1€Cal.€Rptr.Ð pÀ Ð2d€360€(1991);€šòòò òNational€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.€v.€Lynetteó óóó,€228€Cal.€App.€3d€1073,€279€Cal.€Rptr.Ð ` ° Ð394€(1991);€òòò òPawtucket€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Lebrechtóóó ó,€104€N.H.€465,€190€A.2d€420€(1963);€òòò òUnigardÐ P    ÐMut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Argonaut€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€20€Wash.€App.€261,€579€P.2d€1015€(1978);€€òòò òHedtcke€v.Ð ° ÐSentry€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€109€Wis.€2d€461,€326€N.W.2d€727€(1982);€€ò òòòbut€see€White€v.€LeGendreóóó ó,€359€So.Ð  ð Ð2d€652€(La.€Ct.€App.€1978);šò òòò€McBride€v.€Lylesóóó ó,€303€So.€2d€795€(La.€Ct.€App.€1974).€€€€ 5Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝUnder€Rule€13(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€appellate€reviewÐ ° Ðð ðextend[s]€only€to€those€issues€presented€for€review.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€GRE€InsuranceÏframes€the€issue€on€appeal€as€follows:€ð ðThe€trial€court€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€in€holding€thatÏGRE€Insurance€Group€must€provide€a€defense€and€liability€coverage€for€the€defendants€pursuantÏto€their€automobile€liability€policy€in€view€of€the€fact€that€the€permissive€driver€committed€anÏintentional€act€not€covered€under€the€automobile€policy.ðð€€Consequently,€we€do€not€address€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€as€to€Reed,€the€permissive€driver,€that€GRE€Insurance€was€not€obligated€toÏprovide€Reed€a€defense€or€liability€coverage€under€the€policy.€ 5Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝUnder€Rule€13(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€appellate€reviewÐ ° Ðð ðextend[s]€only€to€those€issues€presented€for€review.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€GRE€InsuranceÏframes€the€issue€on€appeal€as€follows:€ð ðThe€trial€court€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€in€holding€thatÏGRE€Insurance€Group€must€provide€a€defense€and€liability€coverage€for€the€defendants€pursuantÏto€their€automobile€liability€policy€in€view€of€the€fact€that€the€permissive€driver€committed€anÏintentional€act€not€covered€under€the€automobile€policy.ðð€€Consequently,€we€do€not€address€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€as€to€Reed,€the€permissive€driver,€that€GRE€Insurance€was€not€obligated€toÏprovide€Reed€a€defense€or€liability€coverage€under€the€policy.€ øÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X¶KXXXÔÔ€élXX¶KÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¶KXélÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€12,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular TÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSome€courts€interpret€the€language€ð ðany€insuredðð€in€similar€exclusions€to€mean€anyÐ ° Ðinsured€under€the€policy,€thereby€excluding€coverage€for€an€innocent€co„insured.€€ò òòòSee€AmericanÐ  ð ÐAmerican€Family€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Mission€Medical€Groupó óóó,€72€F.3d€645€(8th€Cir.€1995);òòò òÐ à ÐAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€McCranieóóó ó,€716€F.€Supp.€1440€(S.D.€Fla.€1989);òòò ò€Western€Mut.€v.€Yamamotoóóó ó,Ð €Ð Ð29€Cal.€App.€4th€1474,€35€Cal.€Rptr.€2d€698€(1994). d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ»ñ›ñ»ñÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ü±XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ  ÓñÅññ»ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rßñ»ññÅññÅññÅññ»ñ›ñ»ñà@} } ìàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñÅñœßt€ )>.*jxE` `€€@EÙå` 8ttxP ð E tß›ñÅñà@úú$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð à ÐÌóóÌGRE€INSURANCE€GROUP,à h àà À à)Ð ` ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìó ó€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó óCoffee€Chancery€No.€96„284à x àà Ð àÐ @  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òà  àà h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ 0 € Ðv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð  p  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€œ01A01„9806„CH„00300ò ò›Ð `  ÐDOUGLAS€KEITH€ð ðRON€JONðð€REED,à À à)Ð P  ÐCHRISTOPHER€LORANCE,€WILLIEà À à)Ð ð@  МLORANCE,›€and€JERRY€œA.€€JONES,›à À àœ)›Ð à0  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendants/Appellees.à h àà À àò ò)Ð À Ðó óÌÌà0  àà ° àà@××ì(#(#àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€COFFEE€COUNTYˆÌà@EEìàAT€MANCHESTER,€TENNESSEEà@@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÌà@p p ìàTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€W.€ROLLINS,€CHANCELLORˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà  àà h àà À àFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó:òòÐ ` Ðóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌBarbara€J€Perutelli€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àChristina€Henley€Duncan€€€€€€€Ð ð@ ÐMarian€L.€Kohl€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Manchester,€TennesseeÐ à0 ÐAshley€N.€ArnoldÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDó óÐ $à" ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÔ‡X _XXXÔBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.Ð ,`'* ÐÌWILLIAM€BRYAN€CAIN,€J.€€€Ô#†Xü±XXX _j #ÔòòÐ  è-8), ÐØØÑ7€ü±XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑñÅñœñÅñóóà@&ìàò òOPINION€ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÓÓà  àIn€this€œcase,€one€of€the›€œinsureds›€on€an€automobile€liability€insurance€policy€allowed€a€thirdÏparty€to€use€œhis›€vehicle.€€The€third€party€then€committed€an€intentional€act€while€operating€theÏvehicle.€€The€insurance€company€sought€declaratory€judgment€to€determine€whether€its€policyÏrequired€it€to€defend€and€provide€liability€coverage€for€the€œinsureds.›€€The€trial€court€held€that€€theÏthird€party€committed€an€intentional€act€which€œexcluded€coverage€to€him€under›€the€terms€of€theÏpolicy.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€the€œinsureds›€did€not€commit€an€intentional€act,€and€that€theÏinsurer€must€provide€a€defense€and€liability€coverage€to€the€œinsureds.›€€The€insurer€appeals€as€to€theÏœinsureds;›€the€issue€is€one€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€€We€affirm.Ìà  àAppellant€GRE€Insurance€Company€(ð ðGRE€Insuranceðð)€issued€an€automobile€liabilityÏinsurance€policy€to€Christopher€Lorance€(ð ðLoranceðð)€and€Willie€Gene€Lorance€(ð ðWillie€Loranceðð),ÏChristopher€Loranceððs€father.€€The€policy€provided€coverage€for€a€1997€Hyundai€Excel€owned€byÏChristopher€œLorance.€€The›€policy€provides:€ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓCOVERAGES€A€&€B€„€LIABILITY€COVERAGEÌWe€will€pay€damages€for€bodily€injury€.€.€.€or€property€damage€.€.€.€which€any€insuredÏperson€becomes€legally€responsible€because€of€an€auto€accident€.€.€.€.€€We€have€noÏduty€to€defend€any€suit€or€settle€any€claim€for€bodily€injury€or€property€damage€notÏcovered€under€this€policy.ÌÌEXCLUSIONS:ÌWe€do€not€provide€Liability€Coverage€for€any€person:€€1.€who€intentionally€causesÏbodily€injury€or€property€damage€.€.€.€œ.ÌÌÓ½ÓÒ°¯ÒÒ°¡Ò›à  àOn€June€11,€1995,€Christopher€Lorance€and€Appellee€Douglas€Keith€ð ðRon€Jonðð€ReedÏ(ð ðReedðð)€were€together.€€They€had€been€drinking.€€Reed€drove€the€insured€vehicle€with€LoranceððsÏpermission.€€While€driving€around€that€evening,€the€two€men€saw€Appellee€Jerry€Jones€(ð ðJonesðð)Ïsitting€alone€on€a€concrete€bridge.€€Reed€stopped€and€got€out€of€the€car;€Lorance€stayed€in€theÏvehicle.€€After€approximately€ten€minutes,€Reed€returned€to€the€vehicle,€placed€it€in€reverse,€shiftedÏit€into€drive,€and€hit€Jones€with€the€car.€€Reed€drove€away€from€the€scene.€€As€a€result,€JonesÏsustained€serious€injuries€requiring€several€surgeries.€€On€œApril€17,€1996,›€Reed€pled€guilty€toÏaggravated€assault.Ìà  àJones€filed€suit€against€Reed,€Christopher€Lorance€and€Willie€Lorance€seeking€medicalÏexpenses,€loss€of€wages,€and€pain€and€suffering.€€GRE€Insurance€provided€a€defense€for€the€LorancesÏâ âunder€a€reservation€of€rights.€€Subsequently,€GRE€Insurance€filed€a€declaratory€judgment€actionÐ 09€48 Ðagainst€Reed,€the€Lorances,€and€Jones,€contending€that€it€is€not€required€to€provide€either€a€defenseÏor€liability€coverage€to€Reed€or€the€Lorances€for€a€tort€action€arising€out€of€Reedððs€intentional€act.€Ìâ âà  àThe€trial€court€held,€in€part:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ€€€€€1.€€[T]hat€the€act€of€Douglas€Keith€ð ðRon€Jonðð€Reed€in€striking€Jerry€A.€Jones€withÏthe€Lorance€automobile€is€an€intentional€act€excluded€from€coverage€under€theÏautomobile€policy;€and€therefore,€the€plaintiff,€GRE,€does€not€have€to€provideÏinsurance€coverage€for€the€defendant,€Reed€.€.€.€€2.€€The€Court€finds€that€there€was€noÏintentional€act€on€the€part€of€defendants,€œChristopher›€Lorance€and€œWillie€Gene›ÏLorance;€and€therefore,€plaintiff,€GRE,€shall€provide€a€defense€and€liability€coverageÏfor€defendants,€œChristopher›€Lorance€and€œWillie€Gene›€Lorance€.€.€.€.€ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓGRE€Insurance€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decision€as€to€the€Lorances.€€Jones€and€the€œLorances›Ïfiled€briefs€in€this€appeal.Ìà  àThere€are€two€issues€on€appeal:€€(1)€whether€GRE€Insurance€has€a€duty€to€defend€theÏLorances€under€the€policy€when€a€third€party,€a€permissive€driver,€committed€an€intentional€actÏexcluded€by€the€policy,€(2)€whether€the€policy€at€issue€affords€liability€coverage€to€the€Lorances€forÏa€negligent€entrustment€claim€when€Reed,€the€entrustee,€committed€an€intentional€act€excluded€byÏthe€policy.€€The€second€issue€on€appeal€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.Ìà  àÔ‡ X  XXX  ÔSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoóóÐ ð@ Ðupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€œ13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòPresleyÐ °"  Ðv.€Bennettó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€857€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ô#†X  XX X  ™#ÔÐ $à" Ðà  àGRE›€Insurance€first€contends€that,€because€Reedððs€actions€were€intentional,€and€the€policyÏexcludes€coverage€for€intentional€acts,€it€has€œno›€duty€to€defend€the€Lorances.œñ´ñ׃×ñ´ññ´ñ׃×ñ´ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€GRE€Insurance€citesÐ P( #& Ðò òòòAllstate€Insurance€Company€v.€Freemanó óóó,€443€N.W.2d€734€(Mich.€1989),€and€argues€that€the€dutyÐ 0*€%( Ðto€defend€the€Lorances€is€derivative€and€inseparable€from€its€duty€to€defend€Reed.€€The€LorancesÏargue€that€an€insurerððs€duty€to€defend€an€insured€is€broader€than€its€obligation€to€indemnify.€€TheyÏargue€that€Jonesðð€claim€against€the€Lorances€is€a€negligent€entrustment€claim€and€that€theyÐ Ð/ +. Ðcommitted€no€intentional€act.€€Jones€also€argues€on€appeal€that€the€cause€of€action€for€negligentÏentrustment€is€a€separate€and€distinct€cause€of€action€which€ð ðdoes€not€rest€on€imputed€negligence€butÏhis€[Loranceððs]€own€independent€negligence€in€the€entrustment.ððÌà  àThe€general€rule€in€Tennessee€is€that€an€insurerððs€duty€to€defend€an€action€against€the€insuredÏdepends€on€the€allegations€in€the€underlying€tort€complaint€against€the€insured.€€ò òòòFirst€Natððl€BankÐ 0 € Мv.›€South€Carolina€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€341€S.W.2d€569,€570€(Tenn.€1960);òòò ò€see€also€Drexel€Chem.€Co.€v.Ð `  ÐBituminous€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€933€S.W.2d€471,€480òòò ò€ó óóó(Tenn.€App.€1996);òòò ò€I.€Appel€Corp.€v.€St.€Paul€Fire€&Ð ð@  ÐMarine€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€930€S.W.2d€550,€552€(Tenn.€App.€1996);òòò ò€Graves€v.€Liberty€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,Ð Ð  Ð745€S.W.2d€282,€283€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€This€Court€in€òòò òDrexel€Chemical€Company€v.€BituminousÐ ° ÐInsurance€Companyó óóó,€set€forth€the€guideline€for€determining€an€insurerððs€duty€to€defend€its€insured:Ð à ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓIt€is€accepted€in€the€overwhelming€majority€of€jurisdictions€that€the€obligation€of€aÏliability€insurance€company€to€defend€an€action€brought€against€the€insured€by€a€thirdÏparty€is€to€be€determined€òòsolelyóó€by€the€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint€in€[theÐ P  Ðunderlying]€action€.€.€.€.€€Accordingly,€if€the€allegations€.€.€.€are€within€the€risk€insuredÏagainst€and€there€is€a€potential€basis€for€recovery,€then€[the€insurer]€must€defend€.€.Ï.€regardless€of€the€actual€facts€or€the€ultimate€grounds€on€which€.€.€.€liability€to€theÏinjured€party€is€predicated€.€.€.€.€€In€any€event,€the€pleading€test€for€determination€ofÏthe€duty€to€defend€is€òòbased€exclusively€on€the€facts€as€alleged€rather€than€on€the€factsÐ P Ðas€they€actually€areóó€.€.€.€.Ð ð@ ÐÓ3&ÓÓÓÌÓ†)ÓÒ°ÒÒ°Òòòò òDrexel€Chem.€Co.óóó ó,€933€S.W.2d€at€480€œ(quoting€ò òòòAmerican€Policyholdersðð€Ins.€Co.€v.€CumberlandÐ Ð  ÐCold€Storage€Co.ó óóó,€373€A.2d€247€(Me.€1977))€(emphasis›€added).€€Likewise,€if€any€one€of€theÐ °"  Ðallegations€is€covered€under€the€policy,€the€insurer€has€a€duty€to€defend€the€insured.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€480Ð $à" Ð(citing€ò òòòU.S.€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.€v.€Murray€Ohio€Manuf.€Co.óóó ó,€693€F.€Supp.€617€(M.D.€Tenn.Ð p&À!$ Ð1988).€€In€ò òòòDempster€Brothers,€Inc.€v.€U.S.€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Companyó óóó,€388€S.W.2d€153,€156Ð P( #& Ð(Tenn.€App.€1964),€€this€Court€held€that,€where€the€allegations€of€the€underlying€complaint€areÏambiguous€and€there€is€doubt€as€to€whether€the€allegations€state€a€cause€of€action€sufficient€to€requireÏinsurer€to€defend,€the€doubt€should€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€insured.€€ò òòòSee€also€Marsh€FurnitureÐ ð-@), ÐCo.€v.€Pennsylvania€Manufacturers€Assn.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€No.€02A01„9505„CV„00103,€1996€WL€328713,Ð Ð/ +. Ðat€*3€(Tenn.€App.€June€17,€1996).à h àÐ °1-0 Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€allegations€in€the€underlying€tort€œcomplaint€include€allegations€of€negligenceÏand€recklessness€on€the€part€of€Reed€in€the€operation€of€the€vehicle.€€Jones€alleged€that€the€LorancesÏwere€guilty€of€negligence€and€reckless€conduct€in€the€negligent€entrustment€of€the€vehicle€to€Reed.€Ïò òÐ  09€48 Ðà  àó óThe›€GRE€automobile€liability€policy€issued€to€the€Lorances€provides:Ð ° ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓWe€will€pay€damages€for€bodily€injury€.€.€.€or€property€damage€.€.€.€for€which€anyÏinsured€person€becomes€legally€responsible€because€of€an€auto€accident€.€.€.€.€€We€willÏsettle€or€defend,€as€we€consider€appropriate,€any€claim€or€suit€asking€for€theseÏdamages.€€In€addition€to€our€limit€of€liability,€we€will€pay€all€defense€costs€we€incur.€ÏOur€duty€to€settle€or€defend€ends€when€our€limit€of€liability€for€this€coverage€hasÏbeen€exhausted.€€We€have€no€duty€to€defend€any€suit€or€settle€any€claim€for€bodilyÏinjury€or€property€damage€not€covered€under€this€policy.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à***ÌÒ°÷/ÒÒ°ÒÒ°0ÒÒ°ÒÓ0ÓÓÓÌœEXCLUSIONS:›ÌWe€do€not€provide€Liability€Coverage€for€any€person:€€1.€who€intentionally€causesÏbodily€injury€or€property€damage€.€.€.€œ.ñ«ñÌñ«ñ›ÌÒ°Î2ÒÒ°®2ÒÓò2ÓœGRE›€Insurance€argues€that€it€has€no€duty€to€defend€the€Lorances€because€the€negligent€entrustmentÏclaim€against€the€Lorances€is€based€on€the€intentional€act€of€Reed,€a€permissive€œdriver,›€and€thatÏdamages€as€the€result€of€an€intentional€act€are€excluded€by€the€policy.€€The€underlying€œcomplaint›Ïalleges€that€Reedððs€actions€were€negligent€and€reckless.€€In€analyzing€the€insurerððs€duty€to€defend,Ïwe€look€only€to€the€allegations€in€the€underlying€complaint.€œò òòòDrexeló óóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€480.€€The›€ò òòòDrexeló óóóÐ 0€ ÐCourt€noted€that€when€one€of€the€allegations€is€covered€under€the€policy,€the€insurer€has€a€duty€toÏdefend€the€insured€ð ðirrespective€of€the€number€of€œallegations›€that€may€be€excluded€by€the€policy.ðð€Ïœòòò òId.óóó ó›€at€480.€€Since€the€Complaint€alleges€that€Reed€was€negligent,€to€determine€GREððs€duty€to€defend,Ð Ð  Ðwe€need€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€an€intentional€act€by€a€third€party€such€as€Reed€means€thatÏa€claim€of€negligent€entrustment€against€the€named€insureds€is€excluded€from€coverage.€€ClearlyÏGRE€Insurance€has€a€duty€to€provide€a€defense€to€the€Lorances€in€the€underlying€tort€action.€€TheÏdecision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà  àGRE€Insurance€also€argues€that€the€policy€does€not€œprovide€liability›€coverage€to€the€LorancesÏbased€on€the€intentional€act€exclusion€under€the€policy.€€GRE€Insurance€notes€that€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€Reedððs€act€was€intentional€and€argues€that€the€negligent€entrustment€claim€against€theÏLorances€is€based€on€the€intentional€act€of€Reed,€and€that€the€policy€œdoes›€not€provide€coverage€forÏintentional€acts.€€The€Lorances€argue€that€they€did€not€commit€an€intentional€act€and€that€the€claimÏagainst€them€is€a€negligence€claim€which€is€not€precluded€under€the€policy.€Ìà  àThe€Supreme€Court€noted€in€ò òòòSt.€Paul€Fire€&€Marine€Insurance€Company€v.€Torpocoóóó ó,€thatÐ p5À04 Ðthe€standard€in€determining€indemnification€or€ultimate€liability€of€the€insurer€is€not€based€upon€theÏfacts€as€alleged,€but€rather€upon€the€true€facts.€€òòò òSt.€Paul€Fire€&€Marine€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€879€S.W.2d€œ831,›Ð 09€48 М835€(Tenn.€1994).›€€In€this€case,€the€facts€are€undisputed.€€Lorance€testified€that€he€gave€ReedÏpermission€to€drive€the€vehicle.€€Lorance€stated€that€they€saw€Jones€sitting€on€a€bridge€and€that€ReedÏstopped€and€got€out€of€the€car€to€talk€to€Jones.€€Lorance€testified€that€Reed€returned€to€the€vehicle,Ïplaced€it€in€reverse,€shifted€it€into€drive,€and€struck€Jones€with€the€car.€€Reed€pled€guilty€toÏaggravated€assault.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Reedððs€act€was€intentional,€and€there€is€œnotñµñ€anñµñ›€issueÏon€appeal€as€to€whether€this€factual€finding€was€in€œerror.›Ìà  àTherefore,€we€must€determine€whether€Reedððs€intentional€act€precludes€liability€coverage€toÏthe€Lorances€when€the€claim€against€them€is€one€of€negligent€entrustment€arising€out€of€ReedððsÏintentional€act.€€€In€support€of€its€argument,€GRE€Insurance€cites€òòò òAllstate€Insurance€Company€v.Ð ° ÐFreemanó óóó,€443€N.W.2d€734€(Mich.€1989)€(concurring€and€dissenting€opinions€filed).€€Ð à Ðà  àIn€ò òòòFreemanóóó ó,€Alonda€œFreeman,›€one€of€the€insureds€under€a€homeownerððs€policy,€œshotò ò€ó óMaryÐ pÀ ÐKelly.›€€ò òòòFreemanó óóó,€443€N.W.2d€at€œ746„47.›€€Kelly€filed€a€tort€suit€against€Mrs.€Freeman€and€herÐ P  Ðhusband,€Marshall€œFreeman,›€a€co„insured€under€the€policy.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€747.€€Kelly€alleged€that€Mr.Ð 0€ ÐFreeman€negligently€entrusted€the€firearm€to€Mrs.€Freeman.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€The€homeownerððs€policy€containedÐ ` Ða€provision€excluding€coverage€for€œð ðany€bodily›€injury€or€property€damage€which€may€reasonablyÏbe€expected€to€result€from€the€intentional€or€criminal€acts€of€an€insured€person€or€which€is€in€factÏintended€by€an€insured€person.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€748.€€Allstate,€the€insurer,€filed€a€declaratory€judgment€action,Ð °"  Ðand€the€trial€court€granted€Allstateððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€holding€that€Allstate€had€noÏduty€to€defend€or€indemnify€Mr.€Freeman.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€747.€€The€Michigan€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ p&À!$ ÐAllstateððs€duty€to€defend€Mr.€Freeman€was€solely€derivative€of€its€duty€to€defend€Mrs.€Freeman.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ P( #& Ðat€œ754.›€€The€ò òòòFreemanó óóó€court€found€first€that€€the€intentional€and€criminal€acts€exclusion€applied€toÐ 0*€%( ÐMrs.€Freeman,€thus€precluding€œcoverage.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€750.€€The›€œò òòòñ¶ñFreemanñ¶ñó óóóñ¶ñ›€ñ¶ñcourt›€also€held€that€Allstate€had€no€dutyÐ ,`'* Ðto€defend€or€indemnify€Mr.€Freeman.€€œò òòòId.ó óóó€at€754.€€Mr.›€Freeman€argued€that€the€exclusion€wasÐ ð-@), Ðambiguous€as€applied€to€him,€and€that€the€policy€therefore€should€be€construed€in€his€favor.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€œñ­ññ¬ñÐ  Ð/ +. Ðñ¬ññ­ññ³ññ®ñÐ  Ð/ +. Ðñ®ññ³ñat›Ð Ð/ +. Ð751.€€Mr.€Freeman€argued€that€ð ðan€insuredðð€could€mean€ð ðthat€insured,ðð€ð ðthe€insured,œ×ƒ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›ðð€or€ð ðanyÐ °1-0 Ðinsured.œ×ƒ`×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The›€insurance€company€argued€that€ð ðan€insuredðð€meant€ð ðany€insured.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€TheÐ ° Ðò òòòFreeman€ó óóócourt€held€ð ðthat€by€excluding€insurance€coverage€for€injury€or€damage€intentionally€causedÐ à Ðby€ððan€insured€person,ðð€Allstate€unambiguously€excluded€coverage€for€damages€caused€by€theÏintentional€wrongful€act€of€any€insured€under€the€policies.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€(quoting€ò òòòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Gilbertóóó ó,Ð P   Ð852€F.2d€449€œ(9th€Cir.€1988)›€(citing€ò òòòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€œCondonóóó ó,€199€Cal.€App.€3d€148,›€243€œCal.Ð 0 € ÐRptr.›€623€(1988))€€€Ìà  àThe€ò òòòFreemanó óóó€court€noted€that€ð ðwe€look€to€the€underlying€cause€of€the€injury€to€determineÐ ð@  Ðcoverage€and€not€to€the€specific€theory€of€liability.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€750.€€The€court€relied,€in€part,€on€severalÐ Ð  ÐMichigan€Court€of€Appeals€decisions€in€which€the€insureds€sought€coverage€under€a€homeownerððsÏpolicy€for€claims€of€negligent€entrustment€of€a€vehicle.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€750„51.€€The€homeownerððs€policyÐ à Ðexcluded€coverage€for€claims€arising€out€of€vehicle€ownership,€use,€or€operation.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€751.€€TheÐ pÀ ÐMichigan€Court€of€Appeals€in€those€cases€held€that€there€was€no€coverage€for€the€claims€of€negligentÏentrustment€of€a€vehicle€under€the€homeownerððs€policy€because€the€negligent€entrustment€theoryÏoriginated€from€the€ownership,€use,€or€operation€of€a€vehicle,€which€was€excluded€by€the€policy.€Ð ` Ðò òòòId.óóó ó€€ò òòòSee€Allstate€Insurance€Company€v.€Goldwateró óóó,€415€N.W.2d€2€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1987);€ò òòòStateÐ ð@ ÐFarm€Fire€&€Cas.€Co.€v.€Huygheó óóó,€375€N.W.2d€442€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1985);€ò òòòMichigan€Mut.€Ins.€Co.Ð Ð  Ðv.€Sunstromó óóó,€315€N.W.2d€154€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1981).€Ð °"  Ðà  àTo€determine€this€issue€on€appeal,€we€first€look€to€the€language€of€the€GRE€policy€issued€toÏthe€Lorances:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓThe€analysis€used€in€construing€insurance€policies€is€well€settled.€€"InsuranceÏcontracts€like€other€contracts€should€be€construed€so€as€to€give€effect€to€the€intentionÏand€express€language€of€the€parties."€€Words€in€an€insurance€policy€are€given€theirÏcommon€and€ordinary€meaning.€€Where€language€in€an€insurance€policy€isÏsusceptible€of€more€than€one€reasonable€interpretation,€however,€it€is€ambiguous.€ÏWhere€the€ambiguous€language€limits€the€coverage€of€an€insurance€policy,€thatÏlanguage€must€be€construed€against€the€insurance€company€and€in€favor€of€theÏinsured.€€(citations€œomitted).ñ°ñÌñ°ñ›Ð Ð/ +. ÐÒ°DQÒÒ°6QÒÓRQÓœñ¯ñÌñ¯ñ›€òòò òTata€v.€Nicholsó óóó,€848€S.W.2d€649,€650€(Tenn.1993).€€If€a€contract€is€unambiguous,€the€meaning€ofÐ ° Ðthe€contract€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€court.€€ò òòòPetty€v.€Sloanóóó ó,€277€S.W.2d€355,€358€(Tenn.€App.Ð à Ð1955).ò òòò€óóó óÐ pÀ Ðà  àUnlike€ò òòòFreemanó óóó€and€the€cases€cited€therein,€the€policy€language€at€issue€in€this€case€œis›€asÐ P   Ðfollows:€ð ðWe€do€not€provide€Liability€Coverage€for€òòany€personóó:€1.€who€intentionally€causes€bodilyÐ 0 € Ðinjury€or€property€damage€.€.€.€.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€We€do€not€find€the€language€ð ðany€personððÏambiguous.€€ò òòòSee€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Evansóóó ó,€1990€WL€64532,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.Ð ð@  ÐMay€18,€1990)€(noting,€in€dicta,€that€the€language€ð ðððan€insured€personðððð€unambiguously€expressesÏa€contractual€intent€to€create€joint€obligations€and€to€prohibit€recovery€by€an€innocent€co„insured.ðð)Ï(citing€ò òòòTravelers€Ins.€Co.€v.€Blanchardó óóó,€431€So.€2d€913€(La.€App.€1983);€ò òòòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.Ð à ÐFreemanó óóó,€432€Mich.€656,€443€N.W.2d€734€œ(1989)).€€ò òòòSee€also€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€Ð pÀ Ðv.€Evansó óóó,€814€S.W.2d€49€(Tenn.€1991).›€€The€language€in€the€GRE€policy€excludes€coverage€for€aÐ P  Ðparticular€person,€not€a€particular€injury.€€The€person€excluded€is€one€who€ð ðintentionally€causesÏbodily€œinjuryñ·ñ€ñ·ñ.›€.€.€.ðð€€œIn€contrast,€in›€ò òòòFreemanó óóó,€the€policy€excluded€coverage€for€an€òòinjuryóó€ð ðwhich€isÐ ` Ð.€.€.€intended€by€an€insured€person.ðð€€ò òòòFreemanó óóó,€443€N.W.2d€at€748.€€€Ð ð@ Ðà  àIn€ò òòòSunshine€Birds€&€Supplies,€Inc.€v.€United€States€Fidelity€&€œGuarñ¸ñ.ñ¸ññ¹ñantyñ¹ñóóó ó,›€696€So.€2d€907Ð Ð  Ð(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1997,€the€Florida€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€an€intentional€act€exclusion€did€notÏpreclude€liability€coverage€for€the€insureds€against€claims€of€negligent€supervision,€training,€andÏretention.€€In€ò òòòSunshine€Birdsóóó ó,€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Company€issued€a€commercialÐ p&À!$ Ðgeneral€liability€policy€to€Sunshine€Birds€&€Supplies,€excluding€from€coverage€ð ðbodily€injuryÏexpected€or€intended€from€the€standpoint€of€the€insured.ðð€€òòò òSunshine€Birds€&€Supplies,€Inc.óóó ó,€696€So.Ð 0*€%( Ð2d€at€908.€€Two€employees€allegedly€sexually€abused€two€minor€children.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€The€parents€of€theÐ ,`'* Ðchildren€sued€Sunshine€for€negligent€supervision,€training,€and€retention€of€their€employees.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€atÐ ð-@), Ð908„09.€€The€court€held€that€the€claims€against€Sunshine€were€negligence€claims€ð ðwhich€areÏcognizable€causes€of€action€existing€under€Florida€law€and€none€of€which€have€been€excluded€fromÏcoverage€under€the€terms€of€the€policy.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€912.€€The€òòò òSunshine€Birds€ó óóócourt€found€that€the€claimsÐ 3à.2 Ðagainst€Sunshine€were€not€barred€by€the€intentional€acts€exclusion.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€ò òòòSee€also€PrudentialÐ p5À04 ÐProperty€&€Cas.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Boylanó óóó,€704€A.2d€597€(N.J.€œSuper.›€Ct.€1997);€ò òòòbut€see€Mount€VernonÐ P7 26 ÐFire€Ins.€Co.€v.€Creative€Housingóóó ó,€668€N.E.2d€œ404,€406€(N.Y.€1996)›€(excluding€coverage€forÐ 09€48 Ðnegligent€supervision€and€negligent€hiring€claim€because€ð ðthe€operative€act€giving€rise€to€anyÏrecovery€is€the€assault.ðð).Ìà  àLikewise,€Tennessee€has€long€recognized€the€tort€of€negligent€entrustment€of€a€vehicle€byÏan€owner€to€an€incompetent€driver.€€ò òòòSee€V.L.€Nicholson€Construction€Co.€v.€Laneóóó ó,€150€S.W.2dÐ P   Ð1069€(Tenn.€1941).ò òòò€óóó ó€In€ò òòòNichols€v.€Atnipóóó ó,€844€S.W.2d€655,€659€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€this€Court€notedÐ 0 € Ðthe€four€elements€of€negligent€entrustment:€€ð ð(1)€an€entrustment€of€a€chattel,€(2)€to€a€personÏincompetent€to€use€it,€(3)€with€knowledge€that€the€person€is€incompetent,€and€(4)€that€is€theÏproximate€cause€of€injury€or€damage€to€another.ðð€€In€òòò òMathis€v.€Stacyóóó ó,€606€S.W.2d€290,€292€(Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1980),€this€Court€also€recognized€that€ð ð[t]he€ownerððs€liability€does€not€rest€on€imputedÏnegligence€but€is€based€on€his€own€negligence€in€entrusting€his€automobile€to€an€incompetentÏdriver.ðð€€ò òòòSee€also€Prater€v.€Burnsó óóó,€525€S.W.2d€846,€850€(Tenn.€App.€1975)€(holding€that€a€ð ðparentððsÐ pÀ Ðliability€rests€alone€upon€whether€there€was€a€negligent€entrustment€of€the€weapon€to€œthe›€minorðð€inÏa€negligent€entrustment€case).Ìà  àIn€ò òòòTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€Company€v.€Evansó óóó,€814€S.W.2d€œat›€œ54ñ°ñ›ñ°ñ,›€ourÐ ` ÐSupreme€Court€recognized€that€the€policy€behind€an€intentional€act€exclusion€is€to€ð ðprohibit€the€useÏof€insurance€to€provide€indemnity€for€civil€tort€liability€that€results€from€an€insuredððs€intentionalÏwrongdoing.€€Otherwise,€a€liability€policy€could€be€used€to€wreak€havoc€at€will.ðð€€In€this€case,€theÏLorances€did€not€commit€an€intentional€act.€€Therefore,€finding€liability€coverage€for€a€negligentÏentrustment€claim€based€on€the€intentional€act€of€another€insured€or€a€third€party€does€not€conflictÏwith€the€policy€considerations€articulated€in€òòò òEvansó óóó.€€€Ð P( #& Ðà  àThe€policy€language€in€this€case€excludes€coverage€for€a€òòpersonóó€ð ðwho€intentionally€causesÐ 0*€%( Ðbodily€injury.€.€.€.ðð€€The€Lorances€did€not€intentionally€cause€bodily€injury€to€Jones.€€Therefore,€evenÏif€Reedððs€act€was€intentional,€the€policy€exclusion€does€not€apply€to€Jonesðð€negligence€claim€againstÏthe€Lorances.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€GRE€Insurance€must€provide€liabilityÏcoverage€to€the€Lorances€is€affirmed.€€ÌœñºñÐ  3à.2 Ðñºñ›à  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÔ‡X;XXXX  Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð < Œ Ðó óà  àò òÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð °  ÐóóBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.Ð œì  ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ `° ÐWILLIAM€BRYAN€CAIN,€J.ó óÔ#†X  XXX;X,l#Ô