ÿWPCõ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) n­8 å 0Jå 0T/ 0^ƒ 0há 0rI 0|» 0†7 0½ 1uM U, 0dî U,RU*~B)¨DCÑ AMa Bov~ŒvÓ  D3Ý 0@ AOPÆŸ 0De D/© BؘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ÜDÝDÞßàDáâDãÓ€íîGav 3|xî«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌMarch€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  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€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€×öXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑFAYE€LORENTZ,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9509„CH„00417ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWayne€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|¢n` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€8856ÌBERTIE€PHILLIPS,€SAM€PHILLIPS,à à)ÌJR.€and€wife,€MARTHA€ANNà àà à)ÌPHILLIPS,€and€AUTO„OWNERSà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WAYNE€COUNTYÌAT€WAYNESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€L.€WEATHERFORD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌJAMES€Y.€ROSSÌ106€Public€Square€NorthÌP.€O.€Box€246ÌWaynesboro,€Tennessee€38485Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌGARY€A.€BREWERÌGLEN€L.€KRAUSEÌBREWER,€KRAUSE,€BROOKS€&€MILLSÌSuite€2600,€The€TowerÌ611€Commerce€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37203Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant€Auto„Owners€Insurance€CompanyÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€ „ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€ XÔÌÓÓÌÓÓà àà àThis€case€involves€the€applicability€of€an€exclusion€clause€in€a€policyÏof€homeownerððs€insurance.€€The€insured€dwelling€burned€to€the€ground€after€theÏplaintiff€moved€out.€The€insurance€company€refused€to€pay€for€the€fire€loss,€citingÏthe€clause€excluding€coverage€for€vandalism€or€malicious€mischief,€where€theÏdwelling€has€been€vacant€for€more€than€thirty€days.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏinsurance€company€had€failed€to€establish€that€the€fire€resulted€from€vandalism€orÏmalicious€mischief,€and€ordered€it€to€pay€the€policy€proceeds€to€the€plaintiff.€€WeÏaffirm.€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àOn€December€29,€1981,€Faye€Lorentz€entered€into€an€installmentÏcontract€to€purchase€a€house€and€the€land€on€which€it€stood.€€The€price€for€theÏCollinwood€Tennessee€property€was€$13,000.€€The€terms€of€the€contract€includedÏa€provision€that€Bertie€Phillips,€the€vendor,€would€insure€the€frame€dwelling€forÏ$14,000.€Mrs.€Phillips€obtained€an€insurance€policy€with€the€appellant,€Auto„Owners€Insurance€Company.ÌÌà àà àMrs.€Lorentz€occupied€the€house€for€about€ten€years,€during€whichÏtime€she€faithfully€paid€the€installments€of€$125€per€month€required€by€the€contractÏof€sale.€In€December€of€1991,€Mrs.€Lorentz,€who€was€about€eighty€years€of€age,Ïmoved€to€Iron€City,€Tennessee,€and€rented€the€house€out€to€Mark€and€VioletÏWright.€€Mrs.€Lorentz€continued€to€make€her€payments€to€Bertie€Phillips.ÌÌà àà àIn€April€or€May€of€1992,€Mrs.€Lorentz€paid€the€final€installment€on€theÏ$13,000€price.€€At€that€time€Bertie€Phillips€refused€to€execute€a€deed€andÏdemanded€payment€of€an€additional€$1,000€before€conveying€title.€€On€June€1,Ï1992,€Mrs.€Lorentz€paid€Bertie€Phillips€$500€towards€the€$1,000€that€had€beenÏadded€to€the€original€purchase€price.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Wrights€lived€in€the€house€for€a€few€months,€and€moved€out€inÏMarch€of€1992.€€The€house€remained€vacant€until€it€was€completely€destroyed€in€aÏfire€that€was€discovered€shortly€after€midnight€on€June€14,€1992.€€AfterÍinvestigation€of€the€scene€of€the€fire,€the€insurance€company€decided€that€theÏobligation€on€the€policy€was€excused€by€the€language€of€its€vandalism€clause,Ïand€they€refused€to€pay€for€the€damage.€€Faye€Lorentz€subsequently€filed€suit€toÏcompel€the€insurance€company€to€pay.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àAt€trial€the€insurance€company€offered€testimony€and€documentsÏfrom€three€investigators:€€Robert€Farris,€Assistant€Director€of€the€Wayne€CountyÏvolunteer€fire€department,€James€Robertson,€a€senior€Tennessee€State€ArsonÏInvestigator,€and€Michael€E.€Rambo,€a€fire€investigator€hired€by€the€company.€ÏBased€on€their€observations€at€the€scene€of€the€fire,€all€three€were€basically€inÏagreement€that€the€fire€was€unusually€hot;€that€it€started€inside€the€house;€and€Ïthat€some€of€the€most€common€causes€of€accidental€fires€had€to€be€ruled€out,Ïbecause€the€utilities€were€disconnected€and€there€was€no€lightning€on€the€night€ofÏthe€fire.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Farris,€who€was€the€first€investigator€on€the€scene,€€testified€thatÏno€gas€or€kerosene€cans€were€found,€nor€any€lighters,€matchbooks,€burntÏmatches,€cigarettes,€or€partially€burnt€rags€with€accelerant€on€them.€€Despite€theÏlack€of€any€physical€evidence€of€the€presence€of€human€beings€in€the€vacantÏhouse,€the€investigators€all€concluded€that€the€condition€of€the€fire€sceneÍindicated€the€fire€had€been€intentionally€set€from€inside€the€house.€€Mr.ÏRobertsonððs€opinion€was€partly€based€on€hearsay€information€that€neighborhoodÏkids€had€used€the€vacant€house€as€a€hangout.ÌÌà àà àHowever,€Mark€and€Violet€Wright,€who€had€moved€to€VioletððsÏmotherððs€house,€located€between€seventy„five€and€two€hundred€yards€away€fromÏtheir€former€rental,€testified€that€they€had€never€observed€children,€homelessÏpeople€or€vagrants€hanging€around€the€vacant€house,€and€that€on€the€night€of€theÏfire€they€did€not€see€any€lights,€hear€any€sounds,€or€notice€anything€suspicious€inÏits€vicinity€before€going€to€bed.€€Mrs.€Lorentz€testified€that€she€inspected€theÏdwelling€periodically,€that€she€did€so€two€weeks€before€the€fire,€and€that€at€theÏtime€it€was€securely€locked,€there€was€no€sign€of€forced€entry,€and€she€observedÏnothing€unusual€in€the€vacant€dwelling.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€stated€that€the€insurance€company€had€failed€to€meetÏits€burden€of€proof€that€the€fire€was€intentional€and€not€accidental,€and€enteredÏjudgment€in€favor€of€Faye€Lorentz.€€The€court€ordered€Mrs.€Lorentz€to€pay€$500€toÏBertie€Phillips€to€complete€the€total€purchase€price€of€the€land€sale€contract,€andÏordered€Auto„Owners€Insurance€to€pay€Mrs.€Lorentz€€the€full€policy€amount€ofÏ$14,000.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€clause€the€appellant€relied€on€to€deny€insurance€benefits€to€theÏappellee€is€found€in€the€section€of€the€insurance€contract€entitled€ò òð ðPERILS€WEÏINSURE€AGAINST.ððó ó€The€relevant€parts€of€that€section€read:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓò òÌ1ó ó.ò ò€Fire€or€Lightning.ó óÌ.€.€.Ì.€.€.Ìò ò8.€Vandalism€or€Malicious€Mischiefó óÌÌThis€peril€does€not€apply€to€loss:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  Ò(a)à0 àat€the€insured€premises€if€the€dwelling€has€beenÏvacant€for€more€than€30€consecutive€daysÏimmediately€preceding€the€loss.€.€.€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àThere€is€no€dispute€that€the€subject€dwelling€was€vacant€for€moreÏthan€thirty€days€preceding€the€loss.€€The€only€question€for€our€determination€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€concluding€that€the€appellant€had€failed€toÏprove€that€the€exclusion€in€the€contract€applied€to€the€damage€sustained€by€theÏappelleeððs€property.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€at€the€outset€that€the€policy€does€not€contain€definitions€ofÏð ðvandalismðð€or€of€ð ðmalicious€mischief.ðð€€The€appellee€has€directed€our€attention€toÏdefinitions€found€in€our€criminal€law.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„408€reads:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓò òÌVandalism.„„ó ó€(a)€Any€person€who€knowingly€causesÏdamage€to€or€the€destruction€of€any€real€or€personalÏproperty€of€another€...€knowing€that€he€does€not€have€theÏownerððs€effective€consent€is€guilty€of€an€offense€under€thisÏsection...€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€term€ð ðmalicious€mischiefðð€is€found€under€Part€13€of€the€formerÏcode,€which€is€titled€ð ðVandalism€and€Injuries€to€Property.ððÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓò òÌMalicious€mischief.„„ó ó€Any€person€who€causes€willfulÏphysical€injury€to€or€the€destruction€of€real€or€personalÏproperty€of€another€from€ill€will€or€resentment€towards€theÏowner€or€possessor€of€such€property,€or€from€mereÏwantonness€is€guilty€of€a€misdemeanor.€(1982€Edition,ÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„3„1301)Ò € ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àDefinitions€found€in€general€and€scholarly€works€are€consistent€withÏthe€above.€€In€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary,€for€example,€vandalism€is€defined€as€ð ðsuchÏwillful€or€malicious€acts€as€are€intended€to€damage€or€destroy€property.ðð€€WhileÏmalicious€mischief€is€ð ðwillful€destruction€of€personal€property€from€actual€ill€will€orÏresentment€towards€its€owner€or€possessor.ðð€(Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€6th€Edition,ÏWest€Publishing€Co.,€1990).€€In€Websterððs€Third€New€International€Dictionary,Ïvandalism€is€defined€as€ð ðwillful€or€malicious€destruction€of€or€defacement€of€thingsÏof€beauty€of€of€public€or€private€property.ðð€(G.&€C.€Merriam€Publishing€Co.,€1971)ÌÌà àà àA€common€element€in€all€these€definitions€is€the€use€of€termsÏdenoting€malice,€intention,€or€at€the€very€least,€knowledge.€€At€trial,€the€Ídefendantððs€expert€witnesses€all€characterized€the€fire€as€ð ðintentional.ðð€€But€even€ifÏthe€appellantððs€theory€was€correct,€and€it€could€prove€that€trespassing€individualsÏhad€been€inside€the€house,€it€is€not€at€all€clear€that€the€court€would€be€obligated€toÏinfer€that€the€fire€resulted€from€vandalism€or€malicious€mischief.€€It€appears€thatÏMr.€Farris€used€the€term€ð ðintentionalðð€simply€to€mean€that€some€human€agencyÏwas€responsible€for€the€fire,€but€he€conceded€on€cross„examination€that€a€fire€mayÏbe€caused€by€a€human€being€and€still€be€accidental.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€Mr.€Farris€and€the€other€experts€based€theirÏconclusions€solely€on€circumstantial€evidence€which€indicated€that€the€fire€was€ofÏunusual€intensity,€that€it€began€inside€the€house€rather€than€outside,€and€byÏelimination€of€alternative€explanations.€€They€could€produce€no€evidence€of€€intentÏor€even€of€human€agency€in€the€genesis€of€the€fire,€but€this€was€not€for€lack€ofÏtrying.€€Mr.€Rambo€took€samples€of€materials€from€four€locations€in€the€house,€andÏsent€them€to€the€laboratory€for€analysis.€€The€samples€did€not€reveal€the€presenceÏof€any€identifiable€accelerant.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àBy€stating€that€Auto„Owners€had€not€met€its€burden€of€proof,€the€trialÏcourt€correctly€indicated€that€it€was€the€appellantððs€burden€to€prove€that€the€fireÏresulted€from€vandalism,€not€the€appelleeððs€burden€to€prove€that€it€resulted€fromÍaccident.€€The€appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€allocation€of€these€burdens€byÏreference€to€this€courtððs€opinion€in€the€unpublished€case€of€òòBreedlove€v.ÏTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€Companyóó,€1988€WL€67167.ÌÌà àà àThough€òòBreedloveóó€is€not€quite€on€point€with€the€current€case,€weÏbelieve€that€to€the€extent€that€it€can€be€relied€upon,€it€bolsters€the€appelleeððsÏargument€more€than€it€does€that€of€the€appellant.€€In€òòBreedloveóó,€we€found€that€theÏburden€rested€on€the€insured€of€proving€that€the€loss€of€cattle€from€his€herdÏresulted€from€theft,€one€of€the€perils€his€policy€insured€against;€when€he€failed€toÏproduce€any€proof€of€theft,€the€insurance€company€was€not€required€to€prove€thatÏthe€loss€fell€under€the€category€of€ð ðmysterious€loss€of€property,ðð€an€exclusionÏunder€the€policy.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€there€is€no€doubt€that€the€appelleeððs€lossÏoccurred€because€of€fire,€a€peril€the€policy€insured€against.€€Since€a€covered€perilÏhad€been€established,€it€became€the€task€of€the€insurance€company,€if€it€wished€toÏprevail,€to€prove€that€the€circumstances€of€the€fire€fell€under€the€exclusion€forÏvandalism€or€malicious€mischief.€€The€burden€of€proving€vandalism€or€maliciousÏmischief€remained€with€the€appellant€at€all€times,€though€the€appellee€could€(andÏdid)€introduce€proof€to€negate€or€weaken€the€appellantððs€theory.€ÌÌà àà àThe€insurance€company€produced€circumstantial€evidence€that€wasÏsuggestive€of€the€conclusion€they€wished€the€trial€court€to€reach.€€But€the€courtÏalso€had€to€consider€the€lack€of€any€admissable€evidence€that€the€house€wasÏused€by€trespassing€parties,€and€of€testimony€to€the€contrary€by€Mrs.€Lorentz€andÏby€Mark€and€Violet€Wright.€€The€negative€laboratory€findings€on€the€presence€ofÏan€accelerant,€also€had€to€weigh€against€the€appellantððs€theory,€despite€Mr.ÏRamboððs€assurances€that€a€such€a€finding€meant€very€little.ÌÌà àà àAfter€weighing€all€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏinsurance€company€had€failed€to€meet€its€burden€of€proof€ð ðthat€the€fire€wasÏintentional,€and€not€accidental€in€nature.ðð€€We€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€of€fact€are€correct,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€See€Rule€13€(d)€Tenn.R.App.P.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óà@ àÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Wayne€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.à àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÑ  Ñ