WPC  Jzƶh@j!2I#OߔV4:e`Yܧuno˱srPLU^    0      8   )  DavidsonChancery ,$    0      8   )  No.971104I(II)   SHELTERMUTUALINSURANCE  )   COMPANY, 0      8   )   @      H!  #      0      8   ) Defendant/Appellee. 8   )  @U U APPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@#ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@N N THEHONORABLECAROLL.McCOY,CHANCELLORCHARLESPATRICKFLYNNMICHAELK.RADFORD214CenterviewDrive,Suite233̜Brentwood,Tennessee37027 AttorneysforPlaintiff/AppellantTHOMASW.HARDINKIMB.KETTERING102W.SeventhStreet,Suite100Columbia,Tennessee384020692 AttorneysforDefendant/Appellee@  AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSEDINPART;@(ANDREMANDED  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8     PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:KOCH,J.CAIN,J. AXX@tt(OPINION XXAԈ ;x4: Ї  0 TheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountygrantedsummaryjudgmenttoappellantsunderinsuredmotoristcarrierbecauseappellantfailedtocomplywiththenoticeprovisionsofthepolicyandtheserviceprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a).TheappellantcontendsthathedidcomplywiththepolicyprovisionsandthatTenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a)doesnotapplyunderthefactsofthiscase.Weaffirmthetrialcourtonthefailuretofollowthestatute.Wereversethedismissalonthefailuretofollowthepolicysnoticeprovisions.@- I.  h`   0 Theappellant,DonaldE.Griffin,suedRichardVaughnfor$500,000forinjuriestheappellantsustainedinanautomobileaccidentinMauryCounty.Mr.GriffinhadunderinsuredmotoristcoveragewithShelterMutualInsuranceCompany(Shelter),buthedidnotserveShelterwithanyofthesuitpapers.Shelterdid,however,pursueasubrogationclaimforthepaymentsmadetoMr.Griffinunderthepolicy.Mr.GriffinslawyeragreedtohandlethesubrogationclaimwithoutcosttoShelter.  0 Mr.GriffinobtainedajudgmentagainstMr.Vaughnfor$225,000,only$50,000ofwhichwascoveredbythedefendantsinsurance.Mr.GriffinthendemandedthatShelterpaythedifferencebetweenthe$50,000andthelimitsofSheltersunderinsuredcoverage.WhenShelterrefused,thisactionfollowed.Thechancellorgrantedsummaryjudgmenttothedefendant.@- II.  5.4   706   0 ShelterresistedMr.Griffinsclaimontwogrounds.Thefirstisfoundin Tenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a)whichrequiresaninsuredintendingtorelyonhisuninsuredmotoristcoveragetoserveacopyoftheprocessissuedagainsttheuninsuredtortfeasorontheinsurancecompany inthemannerprescribedbylaw,asthoughsuchinsurancecompanywereapartydefendant.Wehavesaidthataninsuredmuststrictlycomplywiththestatutesrequirements.Eymanv.Kentucky (  CentralIns.Co.,870S.W.2d530(Tenn.App.993).    0 InEyman,wesaidthatalettertotheinsurancecompanyenclosinga  copyofthesummonsandthecomplaintservedonthetortfeasorwasnotsufficienttosatisfythestatutorymandate.InGloverv.TennesseeFarmersMutualIns.Co.,468  S.W.2d727(1971),ourSupremeCourtheldthataninsuredmustfollowthestatuteandcannotordinarilyfileadirectactionagainsthisuninsuredmotoristcarrier.  0 InBolinv.TennesseeFarmersMutualIns.Co.,614S.W.2d566(Tenn. %  1981),however,theSupremeCourtrecognizedanexceptiontothestrictapplicationofthestatute,wheretheplaintiffpursuedhistortclaimagainstanapparentlyinsureddefendantwithoutservinghisowncarrier,butafterobtainingajudgment,theplaintiffdiscoveredthatthedefendantwasinfactuninsured.TheplaintiffthensuedhisowncarrierandourSupremeCourtallowedhimtosucceed,althoughtheCourtadheredtotheholdinginGlover asageneralrule.TheCourtfounditsignificantthatthe H0@), plaintiffsuninsuredcarrierhadbeenactivelyinvolvedinthelitigationbecausethecarrierhadtodefendtheplaintifffromsomeadverseclaimsarisingoutofthesameaccident.TheCourtsaid:8 80 ! !Itisobviousthatundersomecircumstancesaninsurance carrierbecomessubjecttoaclaimunderthesestatutesat 815 afairlylatestage,orevenaftertheconclusion,oflitigationagainstthetortfeasor. 0 0     0      8 *  *  *   8 80 ! !TherulelaiddownbytheCourtofAppealsinthepresentcasewouldbeaharshoneandwouldrequireeveryplaintiff,suinganapparentlyinsureddefendant,alsotoimpleadhisownuninsuredmotoristcarrierorotherwiselosethebenefitofhiscoverageintheeventthetortfeasorshouldprovetobeuninsuredforsomereasonunknowntotheplaintiff. 0 0  Bolinat568,569. 80    0 TheappellantinsiststhathiscasecomeswithintheBolinexception.We  donotthink,however,thattheexceptiongoesthatfar.Ifitdid,theexceptionwouldϜsoonswallowtherule.TherearetwofactsthatdistinguishthiscasefromBolin.The  firstisthefactthatthisdefendantwasnotcompletelyuninsured.ThesecondisthefactthattheuninsuredcarrieractivelyparticipatedintheBolintrialbecauseitwas xp requiredtodefenditsclientfromtheclaimsarisingoutofthesameaccident.Thus,thecarrierwasnotprejudicedbybeingleftoutofthelitigation.  0 Theappellantscaseisamoretypicalcasewheretheplaintiffassertsalargeclaim($500,0000)andthedefendantapparentlyhasliabilityinsurance.Underthesecircumstances,istheplaintiffjustifiedinassumingthathewillnotneedtorelyonhisuninsuredmotoristcoverage?Ordoesitmakemoresensetofollowthestatutorymandateandservetheuninsuredmotoristcarriersothatthecarriermaydeterminehowtoprotectitsowninterests?Wethinktheanswerisobvious.  0 Itistruethatthecarrierinthiscasepursueditssubrogationclaim;butthatparticipationwasthroughtheappellantscounsel,whoassuredthecarrierthatitssubrogationinterestwouldbeprotected.Thereisnothinginthisrecordtoindicatethatthecarrierwasotherwiseinvolvedinthiscase. 815 Ї  0 WeconcludethattheclaimagainstthecarrierwasproperlydismissedbecauseofthefailuretoservethecarrieraccordingtoTenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a). @zz,III.   М  0 Thesecondgroundonwhichthechancellorgrantedsummaryjudgmentconcernsthepolicylanguage.Inthegeneralprovisionsthepolicysays:8 80 ! !Apersonclaimingcoverageunderthispolicymust...(1)Cooperatewith us andassist us inanymatterconcerning  aclaimorsuit;(2)Senduspromptlyanylegalpapersreceivedorrelatingtoanyclaimorsuit... 0 0    0 PartIV,titledUninsuredMotorists,containstheprovision:8 80 ! !If,before we makepaymentofloss,the insured orthe   insureds legalrepresentativeinstitutesanylegalaction xp for bodilyinjury againstanyotherpersonororganization h` legallyresponsibleforthe use ofan auto involvedinthe X P accident,acopyofthesummonsandcomplaintorotherprocessservedinconnectionwiththelegalactionshallbeforwardedimmediatelytous.(Emphasisinoriginal.) 0 0  М̛  0 WithoutanyshowingofprejudicetoShelter,thechancellordismissedthecomplaintonthefailuretocomplywiththeseprovisionsalso.Theappellantmakesastrongargumentthatneitherprovisionappliesunderthefactsofthiscase,butwetakenopositiononthatargumentbecauseofachangeinthelawsincethedecisionbelow.  0 Whenthechancellordecidedthiscaseaninsurancecompanywasentitledtothedismissalofaclaimunderaninsurancepolicyifthepolicysnoticeprovisionswerenotcompliedwith.Ourcourtsrecognizedthatnoncompliancewiththenoticeprovisionswasacompletedefense,regardlessofanyprejudicetotheinsurancecompany.Hartfor,dAcc.&Indem.Co.v.Creasy,-,530S.W.2d778(Tenn. 926 1975).On-.-December-..December.--/21,1998,however,ourSupremeCourtdecidedthatthefailuretogivenoticeonlyraisedapresumptionofprejudice,andthattheinsuredcouldrebutthepresumptionbyprovingthattheinsurancecompanywasnotprejudiced./0Al010x012cazar   v.Hayes23,____S.W.2d____(Tenn.1998).     0 Theissueofprejudicetothecompanyhasnotbe343ra345enraisedinthiscase;consequentlytheplaintiffhasnothadachancetorebutit.Wehold,therefore,thatthejudgmentdismissingthecomplaintonthisgroundshouldbereversed.52//2,)),  0 WeaffirmthecourtsdismissalofthecomplaintonthegroundthattheplaintifffailedtocomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a).Wereversethedismissalonthegroundthattheplaintifffailedtocomplywiththepolicyrequirements.WeremandthecasetotheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.  0   0      8   _________________________________  0      8   BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8   PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:_____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE_____________________________WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  704   XX P @.6INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE6 6X PXDONALDE.GRIFFIN,   8   ) J n   0      8   ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   8   ) * N   0      8   )  AppealNo. >   0      8   )  01A019712CH00700  .  VS.  0      8   )     0      8   )  DavidsonChancery     0      8   )  No.971104I(II)   SHELTERMUTUALINSURANCE  )   COMPANY, 0      8   )  AffirmedinPart;   H!  #      0      8   )  ReversedinPart;   Defendant/Appellee. 8   )  andRemanded  #XX PK3#X PXXX P @uu'JUDGMENT  j X PX  0 ThiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromtheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel.Uponconsiderationwhereof,thisCourtaffirmsthedismissalofthecomplaintforfailuretocomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a),andreversesthedismissalofthecomplaintforfailuretocomplywiththepolicyrequirements.  0 InaccordancewiththeopinionoftheCourtfiledherein,itis,therefore,orderedanddecreedbythisCourtthatthedecreeisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart.ThecauseisfurtherremandedtotheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyforϜfurtherproceedingsinaccordancewiththisopinionandforthecollectionofthecostsaccruedbelow.  0 CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainstDonaldE.Griffin,Principal,andFlynn&Radford,Attorneys,P.C.,Surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.6556  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE6