WPC" # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D f  f 0J 0TF 0^ 0h 0r` 0| hN hC 0> 0 1uTU, 0d D3Y B 0@U,U>U6SB)DC AMU*B"l fB)D3aa y!Sv~v AO ?! 0D" D/I" Bx"HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDD Ӏ~| 3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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         TABLE B y@TABLE A2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  "# ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X++++'dxd d("$    <  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd-4C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#%1  66   YYY FILED6X March29,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.6AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#%1   $       22TheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledonJune27,1991.% Line 8 d::::'ddTABLE_ATABLE_B o !#d#%1   $       22Iexpressnoopinionastowhetherthedefendants spinontheclaimsispersuasive;however,IwouldpointoutthatthereisnoexpressstatementineitherclaimthatLeffewknewhehadasbestosismorethanoneyearpriortothefilingofthecomplaint.Thisisarguablysignificantbecausethedateonelearnsofadiagnosisobviouslycanbedifferentfromthedatethediagnosisismade. I !#d#%1   $       22TheManvilleclaim,forexample,wastransmittedtotheTrustbyaletterfromLeffewscounseldatedAugust8,1990.  !#d#%1   $       22Isay knewbecauseonceLeffewlearnedonoraboutJune28,1990,thathehadasbestosis,hewouldhavethenrealizedthattheJune6,1990,diagnosisofalungdiseasewasinfactadiagnosisofasbestosis.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %&00Xd&#00Xd#1  P 27:XXdd7\RA'\ћ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEWILLIAMLEFFEW,andwife,  )C/ANO.03A019508CV00280CHRISTINELEFFEW,    )KNOXCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTٜL574;+'h|k`  `Lߛ       )  PlaintiffsAppellants, )       )       )       )       )v.       )       )       )       )       )       )̜AcandS,Inc.,etal.,   )       )HONORABLEDALEWORKMAN,  DefendantsAppellees. )JUDGE@ CONCURRINGOPINION  IconcurintheresultreachedintheopinionauthoredbyJudgeMcMurray;however,Ibelievethebankruptcyclaimsproducedbytheplaintiffsindiscoverydopresentanissuethatwasnotdirectlyaddressedin Wyattv.ABestCompany ,910S.W.2d851(Tenn.1995).Thoseclaimsraisethisquestion:didtheplaintiffWilliamLeffew(Leffew)acknowledgeintheclaimssubmittedonhisbehalfthatheknew,morethanoneyearbeforetheplaintiffsfiledsuit,thathewassufferingfromanasbestosrelateddisease?ThequestioninthiscaseisnotwhethertheJune6,1990,diagnosiswasoneofasbestosis.Thatquestionisclearlyansweredinthenegativebytheholdingin Wyatt .TherealquestionintheinstantcaseisthesignificanceofLeffewsstatementintheclaimsthathewassufferingfroman asbestosrelatedcondition[]thatwas firstdiagnos[ed]onJune6,1990.Doesthismeanthat,priortoJune27,1990 8   ,hehadsomeknowledgeϜofanasbestosrelatedconditionoverandabovethe barebonesJune6,1990,diagnosisof interstitialfibrosisconsistentwithpneumoconiosis?Iwriteseparatelytoexplore,inmoredetail,theclaimsfiledonbehalfofLeffewagainsttheManvillePersonalInjurySettlementTrustandtheUNRAsbestosDiseaseClaimsTrust.  Initspresentposture,thiscaseisstillone onthepapers.Wearedealingwithaquestionofsummaryjudgment.Theaffirmativedefenseofthestatuteoflimitationshasnotbeentriedonthemerits.Therefore,neitherthetrialcourtnorthiscourtispermittedtoweightheevidence. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.1993)( Thecourtisnottoweightheevidencewhenevaluatingamotionforsummaryjudgment.)Summaryjudgmentisdesignedtoresolvecases onthepaperswhenitisclearthatallofthematerialfactsrequiredtoresolveagivenissueareundisputedandthatthoseundisputedmaterialfactsdemonstrateconclusivelythatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgment,asamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.  Inasummaryjudgmentevaluation,thereisamandatedbiasinfavorofthenonmovingparty.Wemustviewtheevidenceinalightfavorabletothatparty. Byrd at215.Bythesametoken,andparticularlyrelevanthere,wemustallowthenonmovingpartyallreasonableinferencesfromtherecordinthatpartysfavor.Id.Iftwomutuallyexclusivereasonableinferencescanbedrawnfromtherecordonefavorabletothemovantandonefavorabletothenonmovantthelatterisentitledtotheonefavorabletohimorher.Iwillreviewtheseclaimswiththeseprinciplesinmind.  InordertounderstandtheessenceofthedefendantspositionwithrespecttotheseessentiallysimilarbankruptcyϜclaims,itisnecessarytoexaminetheclaimformsfiledonbehalfofLeffew.IwillanalyzetheonefiledagainsttheManvillePersonalInjurySettlementTrust;however,mycommentsareequallyapplicabletotheotherclaim.Foreaseofreference,theϜportionsoftheManvilleTrustclaimcompletedonbehalfofLeffewϜareshowninitalics:̛*9;:< d,<dd+     2ԜSOCIALSECURITYNO.2XԀ409205412 Ѐ2IN1.ASBESTOSRELATEDCONDITIONS*9;:= d,<dd,<dd+     CONDITIONLOCATIONORIGIN2XInterstitialfibrosis    2DATEOFFIRSTDIAGNOSIS2X(6)MONTH(6)DAY(90)YEAR       2PHYSICIANNAME(S)2XMyungSupKim,M.D.    2CONDITIONLOCATIONORIGIN2XProbableasbestosrelatedlungdisease    2DATEOFFIRSTDIAGNOSIS2X(6)MONTH(28)DAY(90)YEAR       2PHYSICIANNAME(S)2XSteveG.Ferguson ӛ  ThedefendantsarguethatthisclaimreflectsthatLeffewknew,priortoJune27,1990,thathewassufferingfromasbestosis.Theargumentgoessomethinglikethis:theclaimaskedtheclaimanttoidentify asbestosrelatedconditions;Leffewscounselfilledintheconditionof interstitialfibrosisasoneofhis asbestosrelatedconditions;heindicatedthatthis asbestosrelatedcondition[]was firstϜdiagnos[ed]onJune6,1990;therefore,theargumentgoes,LeffewknewonoraboutJune6,1990,thathewassufferingfroman asbestosrelatedcondition[].  Assuming,forthepurposeofargument,thattheinterpretationplacedonthebankruptcyclaimsbythedefendantsϜisareasonableone >   ,itisobviousthattheirinterpretationisnotaconclusiveone.Therefore,thequestionremainsisthereareasonableinterpretationoftheclaimsfavorabletotheϜplaintiffs?Ifthereis,wemustdiscardtheinterpretationfavorabletothedefendantsas countervailingevidence.Id.at21011.  ItmustberememberedthatLeffewsclaimsweresubmittedafterDr.SteveG.Fergusonmadehisdiagnosisofasbestosis ?   כ.ItcanbelegitimatelyarguedthatLeffew,inhisclaims,wasassertingthat,afterhegotthedefinitediagnosisofasbestosisfromDr.Ferguson,hethenknew @   כthatthebroaderxraydiagnosisof interstitialfibrosiswasreallyevidenceofϜasbestosis.Thisisafairinferencefromthebankruptcyclaims,itisfavorabletoLeffew,andheisentitledtoitunderoursummaryjudgmentprocedure.  ThebankruptcyclaimsfiledbyLeffewareclearlysusceptibletoareasonableinterpretationa slantasitwerēfavorabletohisposition,i.e.,thathedidnotknowof,andisnotlegallychargeablewithknowledgeof,hisconditionofasbestosisuntilhelearnedofthatdiagnosisfromDr.Ferguson.  Thebankruptcyclaims,properlyconstrued,donotestablishafactessentialtothedefendantsmotion,i.e.,accrualoftheplaintiffscauseofactionmorethanoneyearbeforetheinstantcasewasfiled.Thisbeingthecase,thefactsofthiscase,fromthedefendantsstandpoint,arenostrongerthanthosein Wyatt .Therefore,thereisnoreasontoreachthedefendantsestoppelargument,dependentasitisonouradoptionofthedefendantsinterpretationofthebankruptcyclaims.  Summaryjudgmentontheaffirmativedefenseofthestatuteoflimitationsisnotappropriate.Itremainstobeseenwhattheadmissibleevidenceonthisparticularissuewillreflectwhenthisissueandtheotherissuesmadebythepleadingsaretriedonthemerits.      ________________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.