WPC4Q  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a77 0J8 1mF9 0d9 0@: D3W: 0J: 0T: 0^(; 0h; 0r; 0|`< 0< 0b= 1u=U,g> 0d>U,>U6#?B)Y?DC? AM?U*@I<@kAv~BvnD 0AJ 0J 0ZK 0K 0L 0uM 0PN AO?OO 0PTP 0DP D/P BQV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x*<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dc`$(G.2 $ FT!   dXX     0  COLEMANLynnStacieBeverlyAllstateJacksonsMutRambeauFarrisAbexArlingtonConst.($   0  Mtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$26.  0  3  0  ("$    GGGG'dxd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  STUVWXYZ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dffff7Border 1ddOgC << G<  9p`(Arial ? F!  #d#\e  "  ii   YYY FILEDiX January18,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.iAppellateCourtClerk  a F!#d#\e  I$e         AlthoughJamesG.Hayes,agentforStateFarm,filedanoticeofappealandajointbriefwithStateFarminthisCourt,hewasnotcastinjudgment.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2A   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2A(  0  )3  0 (# (#(U$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2A(  a  )3  0h(#(#(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2A(   )3  0h(#h(#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2A  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2A  a  )3  0p(#(#OC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ FT!   ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . \&ddXd&#ddXd#e    7oXXdd7\RA'\ `   Lhjg;+'h|`  `L@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE       @ EASTERNSECTIONTHOMASH.JACKSON,JR.,@ ) HAMILTONCOUNTYandBEVERLYV.JACKSON@ ) 03A019504CH00116@ ) PlaintiffsAppellees,and@ )@ )ROBINLYNNJACKSON,PEGGY@ )ROSE,STACIER.HENRY,and@ )ALLSTATEINSURANCECOMPANY@ )@ ) InterveningPlaintiffs@ ) HON.R.VANNOWENS, Appellees,and @ ) CHANCELLOR CrossAppellant@ )@ ) v.@ )@ )JAMESG.HAYESandSTATE@ @ )FARMMUTUALAUTOMOBILE @ )INSURANCECOMPANY@ )@ ) DefendantsAppellants@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED andCrossAppellees@ )JOSEPHC.WILSON,III,OFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLANTSJAMESG.HAYESandSTATEFARMMUTUALAUTOMOBILEINSURANCECOMPANYLEXA.COLEMANOFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLEESTHOMASH.JACKSON,JR.,BEVERLYV.JACKSON,ROBINLYNNJACKSON,PEGGYROSE,STACIER.HENRY,andAPPELLEE/CROSSAPPELLANTALLSTATEINSURANCECOMPANY     OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  JamesG.Hayes k   ׀andStateFarmMutualAutomobileInsuranceCompanyappealajudgmentoftheHamiltonCountyChanceryCourtwhichprovidedinpartthefollowing:     2.StateFarmMutualAutomobileInsuranceCompany,therefore,shallbeliabletoRobinLynnJacksonfor: (a)the$13,000judgmententeredinfavorofPeggyS.RoseagainstRobinLynnJacksoninDiv.IIHamiltonCountyCircuitCourtcaseNo.92CV454,plus (b)postjudgmentinterestonthatjudgmentaccruedattheapplicablelegalrateofinterestfromthedateofentryofthejudgment,June8,1993,untilitisfullysatisfiedbyStateFarm,plus, (c)anycourtcoststaxedinthatcase. 3.StateFarmMutualAutomobileInsurancecompanyshallalsobeliabletoRobinLynnJacksonfor: (a)the$13,425.26judgmententeredinfavorofStacieHenryagainstRobinLynnJacksoninUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofTennesseecaseNo.1:92cv311,plus (b)postjudgmentinterestonthatjudgmentaccruedattheapplicablelegalrateofinterestfromthedateofentryofthejudgment,June8,1993,untilitisfullysatisfiedbyStateFarm,plus (c)anycourtcoststaxedinthatcase. 4.StateFarmMutualAutomobileInsuranceCompanyshallalsobeliabletotheJacksonsforthe$2,346.00inattorneysfeesincurredwithJohnHiggasonforhisrepresentationoftheminthePeggyRoseandStacieHenrylawsuits.      ThejudgmentwasrenderedasaresultofdamagessustainedbyThomasJ.Jackson,Jr.,BeverlyV.Jackson,andRobinLynnJackson,theirdaughter,arisingfromtwolawsuitsfiledagainstthemwhichtheirliabilitycarrierfailedtoprovidecoverageordefend.AllstateInsuranceCompany("Allstate"),theuninsuredmotoristcarrierastothevehicleinwhichtheplaintiffsintheunderlyingcasewereriding,crossappealsajudgmentdenyingitsclaimfortheattorneyfeesincurredindefenseoftheJacksonsintheabovementionedactions.  Thefactsrelevanttothisappealareasfollows.OnDecember16,1988,StateFarm,throughitsagentJamesG.Hayes,issuedanautomobileliabilitypolicytoThomasandBeverlyJackson.ThepolicyinsuredMr.andMrs.Jackson's1979OldsmobileCutlassforapolicyperiodbeginningonDecember16,1988,andendingonJune16,1989.Thepolicycouldberenewedeverysixmonthsuponpaymentofthepremiumonorbeforetheduedate.  Atthattime,Mr.andMrs.JacksonhadvariouspolicieswithStateFarm,includingtwootherseparateautomobileliabilitypolicies,ahomeownerspolicyandfloodinsurance.Eachofthepolicieshaddifferentduedates.ThroughtheyearsMr.andMrs.Jacksonsometimesexercisedtheiroptiontopayhalfofapolicy'spremium,plus$2.00,duringthefirst90daysofthepolicyterm.  Overthecourseofayear,Mr.andMrs.JacksonreceivedalargenumberofmailingsfromStateFarm.StateFarmregularlysentmailingsoneachofthevariouspolicies,includingrenewalnotices,balanceduenotices,andcancellationnotices.Thevariousnoticesboreapolicynumber,adescriptionoftheinsuredvehicle,theamountdueonthepolicy,andtheapplicableexpirationorcancellationdate.  Asforthepolicyonthe1979Cutlass,Mr.andMrs.Jacksonpaidthepremiuminfullatthetimethepolicywasissuedin1988.Mr.andMrs.JacksonagainpaidthepremiuminJuneof1989.OnDecember11,1989,Mrs.JacksonwenttoMr.Hayes'agencypreparedtopaytheentireamountofthepremium.Mr.Hayes'employeesmistakenlyadvisedMrs.Jacksonthattheamountdueonthepolicywasconsiderablylessthantheamountofthepremium.Mrs.Jacksonrequestedthattheemployeedoublecheck,whichtheemployeedidwiththesameresult.Becauseofthismistake,theentirepremiumwasnotpaid.Asaresult,StateFarmtreatedthepolicyaslapsedandsentnomorepremiumnoticesonthe1979CutlassandnomorepremiumpaymentsweremadeonthatpolicybyMr.andMrs.Jackson.  OnJuly9,1991,whilebeingdrivenbyRobinJackson,the1979Cutlasswasinvolvedinanaccident.Asaresultoftheaccident,suitwasbroughtagainstMr.andMrs.JacksonandRobinintwoseparatecourtactionsbyPeggyRoseandStacieHenry.StateFarm,afterinvestigation,deniedcoverageonthepolicytoMr.andMrs.JacksonandRobin.Thus,StateFarmdidnotparticipateineitheroftheactions.Mr.andMrs.JacksonacquiredtheservicesofMr.Higgason,anattorney,fortheirdefenseintheseactions.Also,pursuanttotheuninsuredmotoristinterestinMissHenry'sgrandmother'sautomobileinsurancepolicywiththeAllstateInsuranceCompany,AllstateenteredadefenseonbehalfofRobinJacksoninbothlawsuits.  TheactionsresultedinajudgmentinfavorofMs.Roseintheamountof$13,000againstMs.JacksonandajudgmentinfavorofMs.Henryinanamountof$13,425.26,alsoagainstMs.Jackson.Mr.andMrs.Jacksonincurred$2,346inattorneyfeestotheirattorney.Allstateclaimstohaveincurredlegalfeestotaling$15,992.68.  Thereafter,Mr.andMrs.JacksonandAllstatebroughtsuitintheHamiltonCountyChanceryCourtagainstStateFarmanditsagentMr.HayesforthejudgmentsfoundagainstRobin,aswellasthecostsincurredinthedefenseoftheactions.TheChancellorfoundthatMr.Hayes'employeehadmadearepresentationthatwasnotinaccordwiththetruthbyrepresentingthatthepremiumthatwasdueonthe1979Cutlasswaslessthanitwasinactuality,thatMr.andMrs.Jacksonreliedonthisrepresentationandasaresultofthisreliance,Mr.andMrs.Jacksonhadchangedtheirpositiontotheirdetriment.Thus,theChancellorfoundthatStateFarmwasestoppedtodenycoverageanddirectedAllstatetopaytheamountoftheawardsintheRoseandHenrylawsuits,aswellastheattorneyfeesincurredbyMr.andMrs.Jackson.TheChancelloralsodirectedMr.andMrs.Jacksontopaytheoverduepremiumsonthepolicycoveringthe1979Cutlass.Allstate'sclaimforattorneyfeeswasdenied.  TheAppellants,StateFarmandMr.Hayes,contendthattheChancellorerredinconcludingthattheywereestopped,throughtheactionsandstatementsoftheiremployees,todenycoveragetoMr.andMrs.Jacksonandtheirdaughter,RobinLynnJackson,forheraccidentofJuly9,1991.Allstatecrossappeals,arguingthattheChancellorerredindisallowinganawardofattorneyfeesinitsfavor.  EstoppelintheinsurancecontextwasextensivelydiscussedbyourSupremeCourtinBillBrownConst.v.GlensFallsIns.Co.,818S.W.2d1(Tenn.1991).TheretheCourtcitedtheTennesseeAgencyStatuteforthepropositionthatanyconflictarisingfromreliance,onthepartofaninsured,ontherepresentationsoftheinsuranceagentshouldbeconstruedinthefavoroftheinsured.Anyprovisionoftheinsurancepolicymaybewaivedbytheactsoftheinsurer'sagent.BillBrownConst.Co.,supra.However,theinsuredhastheburdenofprovingtheelementsofestoppel.  Generally,whenaninsuredreasonablybutdetrimentallyreliesonthestatementsofaninsuranceagent,theinsurancecompanywillbeestoppedtodenycoverage."Inanactiononacontractofinsurance,theinsurancecompanyisgenerallyconsideredestoppedtodenyliabilityonanymatterarisingoutofthefraud,misconduct,ornegligenceofanagentofthecompany."Henryv.SouthernFire&CasualtyCo.,46Tenn.App.335,330S.W.2d18(1958).Inordertosucceedonaclaimofestoppel,aclaimantmustshowconductonthepartoftheinsureroritsagentwhichamountstoafalserepresentation,thattherewasanintentionorexpectationthattherepresentationwouldbeacteduponbytheinsured,andactualorconstructiveknowledgeofthefacts.SeeRobinsonv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,857S.W.2d559(Tenn.App.1993).Theinsuredmustalsoshowlackofknowledgeandthemeansofknowledgeofthetruthastotherepresentedfacts,reliance,andprejudicialchangeinposition.  Thereviewofthefindingsoffactofthetrialcourtisdenovoandthereisapresumptionofcorrectnessunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsotherwise.Rule13(d),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Thus,onlyiftheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheChancellor'sfindingswillhisjudgmentbereversedonappeal.    TheChancellorfoundthatoverthecourseof15yearstheAppellantprovidedMr.andMrs.JacksonwithalloftheirautomobileandhomeownersinsuranceandthattheyhadestablishedacourseofdealinginwhichMr.andMrs.Jacksonfrequentlypersonallyinquiredastotheamountofpremiumsdueratherthanrelyingonmailedstatements.Astotheseinquiries,theChancellorfoundthatMr.andMrs.Jacksonrelied,onaregularbasis,ontherepresentationsmadebyMr.Hayes'employeesconcerningtheamountofpremiumpaymentstheyowed.Further,theChancellorfoundthatuponattemptingtopaythepremiumonthe1979Cutlass,Mrs.Jacksonwasincorrectlyinformedoftheamountofpremiumdueonthepolicy.Mrs.Jacksoninformedtheemployeethatshethoughtthatmorewasdueonthepolicy.TheemployeedoublecheckedandreassuredMrs.Jacksonthatthemisrepresentedamountwascorrect.Asaresultofthismistake,thepolicylapsedandwascanceled.Thus,itisapparentthattheelementsofestoppelassetoutinRobinsonaremetandtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheChancellor'sfindings.  TheAppellantsarguethatestoppelshouldnotbefoundinthiscasebecauseMr.andMrs.Jacksonhadtheabilitytoascertainthetruthoftherepresentation."[T]herecanbenoestoppelwherebothpartieshavetheopportunityandthemeansofascertainingthetruth."Rambeauv.Farris,186Tenn.503,212S.W.2d359(1948).SeealsoRobinson,Supra.StateFarmreliesonafindingbytheChancellorthattheAppellantsprovidedMr.andMrs.Jacksonwithsufficientinformationthattheycouldhaveascertainedtheduedatesandamountsowedontheirvariouspolicies.However,asalreadynoted,theChancelloralsofoundthatforover15years,Mr.andMrs.JacksonhadalloftheirautomobileandhomeownersinsurancewithStateFarmthroughMr.Hayes'agency.Includingthepolicyatissue,atthetimeofthemisrepresentation,Mr.andMrs.Jacksonhadfiveseparateinsurancepolicies.Thesepoliciesgeneratedalargenumberofmailings.TheChancellorfoundthatitbecamethepracticeofMr.andMrs.Jacksontoinquirepersonallyastothestatusofthepoliciesandnottorelyonthevariousmailings.AfterthemisrepresentationbyMr.Hayes'employeeandthesubsequentlapseofthepolicy,Mr.andMrs.Jacksonmadeadditionalinquiriesandwereassuredthattheirpolicieswerecurrent.  Thus,wefindthat,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,theChancellorwascorrectinfindingtheelementsofestoppelweremet.WeaccordinglyaffirmthisportionoftheChancellor'sjudgment.  Allstate,asCrossAppellant,arguesthattheChancellorerredbydenyingitscostofdefendingMr.andMrs.JacksonintheRoseandHenrylawsuits.AllstatearguesthatbecauseStateFarmwrongfullydeniedcoverage,theywereforcedtoprovidedefensebyvirtueofMs.Henry'sgrandmother'suninsuredmotoristcoverage.AllstatecontendsthattheChancellor'srulingallowsStateFarmtobeunjustlyenrichedbythevalueofthedefenseprovidedbyAllstate.Onthisissue,theChancellorfound:    StateFarmisresponsiblefortheattorneyhiredbyMr.andMrs.Jackson.AllstateInsuranceCompanyhadtheirattorneysinthelawsuitnottobenefitortoprotectMr.andMrs.JacksonorRobinJackson.Theywereinthelawsuittoholdthejudgmentdowntominimizeanysumstheywouldhavetopay.SuchdidnotinuretothebenefitofMr.andMrs.Jackson.(Emphasissupplied.)      TheTennesseeLegislature,inT.C.A.5671206,hasprovidedthatwhenanuninsuredmotoristpolicyisreliedoninanactionagainstanuninsured,theuninsuredmotoristcarrier"shallthereafterhavetherighttofilepleadingsandtakeotheractionallowablebylawinthenameoftheownerandoperatoroftheuninsuredmotorvehicle."(Emphasissupplied).Thus,itisclearthatanuninsuredmotoristpolicycarrier,whosepolicyhasbeeninvoked,hasaright,butnostatutoryduty,todefendonbehalfoftheuninsuredmotorist.   AllstatecitestheruleinTennesseethatattorneyfeesarerecoverableunderanindependenttorttheory.Therulestates:    Onewhothroughthetortofanotherhasbeenrequiredtoactintheprotectionofhisinterestsbybringingordefendinganactionagainstathirdpersonisentitledtorecoverreasonablecompensationforlossoftime,attorneyfeesandotherexpenditurestherebysufferedorincurredintheearlieraction.(Emphasissupplied.)    Restatement(Second)ofTorts914(2)(1977).SeealsoPullmanStandardInc.v.AbexCorp.,693S.W.2d336(Tenn.1985);WilsonEstatev.ArlingtonAutoSales,743S.W.2d923(Tenn.App.1987).Thisisconsistentwiththerulethattheseexpensesmayonlyberecovered"wherethenaturalandproximateconsequenceofatortiousactofdefendanthasbeentoinvolveplaintiffinlitigationwithathirdperson."PullmanStandard,supra.  InWilsonEstate,thisCourtawardedattorneyfeeswhenaninsuranceagentwasforcedtodefenditselfinanactioninwhichtheinsurerhadwrongfullydeniedcoverage.ThisCourtfocusedonthebadfaithoftheinsurerandtherelationshipbetweentheinsureranditsagent.  Inthepresentcase,thoughwehavefoundthatStateFarmwrongfullydeniedcoverage,therehasbeennoshowingofbadfaith.Rather,coveragewasdeniedduetoaclericalmistakeoracomputererror.Further,inWilsonEstate,therelationshipofthepartieswasoneofprincipalandagent.ThereisnosimilarrelationshipbetweenStateFarmandAllstateandtheysharenocommonliabilitywithrespecttotheotherpartiesinthisthesecases.Finally,asstatedabove,AllstatehadnodutytoprovideanydefenseforMr.andMrs.Jackson.WeagreewiththereasoningoftheChancellorthatAllstateenteredadefenseonbehalfofMr.andMrs.JacksoninordertominimizetheamountofanyjudgmentrenderedagainstMr.andMrs.JacksonorRobinwhichtheywouldhavetopayundertheuninsuredmotoristpolicy.ThisdefenseenuredtothebenefitofAllstatemoredirectlythananyotherpartyinthissuit.  FortheforgoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofthecostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstStateFarm.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sr.J.