ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€áªv~‹vÓ  BÜ D3ù 0@, AOlÆ» 0D D/Å Bô˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¸D¹UºD»U¼E½U¾V¿DÀÓ€ÊDÒ 3|xÊ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ×Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌJanuary€8,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌCHARLES€G.€MILLER,€IV€and€à àà à)à àÌwife,€BRENDA€MILLER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,€€€ò òà àà à)à àó óWhite€Circuit€No.€J„1376TÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDANA€R.€MABE€and€SHANE€GANT,€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9602CV„00056ò òÌa/k/a€SHANE€COOPERà àà àà à)̜ـ€ÙßR€ "A1-j|JÿÈ` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àœDefendants,à àà àò ò›à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTHE€GLENS€FALLS€INSURANCEà à)ÌCOMPANY.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óUnnamed€Defendant/Appellee.ò òà à)ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WHITE€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SPARTA,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€TURNBULL,€JUDGE€€€€€€€€ÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Unnamed€Defendant/Appelleeóó:òòÌóóÌDonald€G.€Dickersonà àà àà àà àDaniel€H.€Rader,€IIIÌCookeville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àCookeville,€Tennessee€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.ÇØØÙ  ÙÑ7€u"XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà0 àà àò òà0 àà àà@ àOPINION̛̜ÓÓÓ  Óà àó óThis€case€involves€the€interpretation€of€an€insurance€policy.€€After€being€struck€by€a€vehicleÏdriven€by€defendant€Dana€R.€Mabe€(ð ðMabeðð),€plaintiff€Charles€G.€Miller€(ð ðMillerðð)€filed€thisÏpersonal€injury€lawsuit€against€Mabe€and€defendant€The€Glens€Falls€Insurance€Company€(ð ðGlensÏFallsðð).€€The€trial€court€granted€Glens€Fallsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€holding€that€MillerÏwas€not€covered€by€the€uninsured€motorist€provision€of€the€Glens€Falls€policy€because€he€was€notÏð ðoccupyingðð€the€insured€vehicle€at€the€time€he€was€injured.€€Miller€appealed€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision.€€We€affirm.Ìà àAt€the€time€of€the€accident,€Miller€was€employed€as€a€technician€by€Cookeville€Cablevision.€ÏGlens€Falls€provided€insurance€for€Cookeville€œCablevision,›€and€Millerððs€work€van€was€coveredÏunder€the€policy.Ìà àOn€the€evening€of€December€11,€1992,€Miller€was€called€to€repair€a€cable€television€line€at€aÏresidence.€€Miller€parked€his€van€across€from€the€residence€and€got€out.€€He€left€the€vanððs€engineÏrunning,€left€the€headlights€on,€turned€on€the€emergency€œflashers,›€and€had€a€beacon€light€flashingÏon€top€of€the€vehicle.€€To€illuminate€his€work€area,€Miller€plugged€a€large€spotlight€into€the€vanððsÏcigarette€lighter€and€mounted€it€above€the€door€to€the€van.€€He€set€out€orange€safety€cones€in€frontÏof€and€behind€the€van.€€Ìà àMiller€then€got€a€spool€of€cable€wire€from€the€van€and€carried€it€to€a€telephone€pole€œnear›€aÏœtree.›€€He€took€a€ladder€off€the€van,€leaned€it€against€the€pole,€climbed€the€œladder,›€and€threw€someÏof€the€cable€wire€over€a€branch€of€the€tree.€€After€that,€Miller€carried€the€ladder€across€the€road€andÏleaned€it€against€a€second€pole.€€Ìà àAt€that€point€Miller€returned€to€his€van€to€retrieve€his€tool€belt.€€The€cable€wire€was€layingÏon€the€ground€across€the€road.€€After€getting€his€tool€belt,€Miller€climbed€up€one€of€the€poles€andÏattached€the€cable€wire.€€He€then€climbed€down€and,€using€a€limb€stick,€began€pulling€the€cableÏwire€tight€and€weaving€it€between€the€tree€branches€above€the€road.€€Miller€was€standing€in€theÏroad€with€one€foot€on€the€yellow€middle€line,€approximately€three€or€four€feet€from€his€van,€usingÏthe€limb€stick€and€looking€up€toward€the€tree€branches€and€the€wire,€when€he€heard€a€carÍaccelerating€and€was€struck€by€Mabeððs€vehicle.€€He€received€serious€injuries€from€the€accident,€andÏthis€lawsuit€ensued.Ìœ›à àMiller€filed€his€lawsuit€against€Mabe€and€passenger€Shane€Gant€for€the€injuries€he€sustainedÏin€the€accident.€€A€copy€of€the€lawsuit€was€served€on€Glens€Falls,€the€carrier€of€the€uninsuredÏmotorist€insurance€policy€for€Cookeville€Cablevision,€the€owner€of€the€van€Miller€was€using.€ÏGlens€Falls€moved€for€summary€judgment,€asserting€that€Miller€was€not€covered€under€theÏuninsured€motorist€insurance€policy.€€The€issues€regarding€the€uninsured€motorist€insurance€policyÏwere€severed€from€the€plaintiffððs€tort€claims€by€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àThe€Glens€Falls€insurance€policy€provided€uninsured€motorist€coverage€for:ÌÓÓà àB.€€WHO€IS€INSUREDÌÌà àà à1.€€You.̛̜à àà à2.€€If€you€are€an€individual,€any€ð ðfamily€member.ðð̛̜à àà à3.€€Anyone€else€ò òoccupying€a€covered€ð ðautoððó ó€or€a€Ìà àà à€€€€€temporary€substitute€for€a€covered€œð ðauto.ðð.€.€.›ÌÌÓÓThe€policy€defined€the€term€ð ðoccupyingðð€as€ð ðin,€upon,€getting€in,€on,€out€or€off.ðð€€In€its€motion€forÏsummary€judgment,€Glens€Falls€asserted€that€Miller€was€not€covered€because€he€was€notÏð ðoccupyingðð€the€covered€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€The€trial€court€granted€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€Glens€Falls,€finding€that€Miller€was€not€ð ðoccupyingðð€the€van€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Miller:ÌÓÓà8 àwas€not€vehicle€oriented€at€the€time€of€the€accident€but€that€he€was€highway€orientedÏand€work€oriented€œand€wire€oriented€at›€the€time€of€the€accident.ÌÌÓÓFrom€this€decision€Miller€now€appeals.Ìà àThe€facts€pertinent€to€the€issue€presented€are€undisputed.€€Therefore,€our€inquiry€involvesÏonly€œinterpretation›€of€the€contract,€a€question€of€œlaw.€€ò òòòRainey€v.€Stanselló óóó,€836€S.W.2d€117,Ï118€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€In€construing€contracts,€the€terms€ð ðshould€be€given€their€usual,€naturalÏand€ordinary€meaning.€.€.€.ðð€€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€118„19.€€€No›€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€on€a€question€of€œlaw€such€as€interpretation€of€the€policy,›€and€we€must€determineÍwhether€Glens€Falls€is€entitled€to€summary€judgment€based€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòò òSee€CarvellÏv.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìà àOn€appeal,€Miller€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€he€was€not€ð ðoccupyingððÏthe€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€The€interpretation€of€the€term€ð ðoccupyingðð€in€the€uninsuredÏmotorist€provisions€of€an€insurance€policy€œwas›€discussed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€ò òòòTataÏv.€Nicholsó óóó,€848€S.W.2d€649€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€ò òòòTataó óóó,€a€disabled€vehicle€was€parked€on€theÏshoulder€of€a€œhighway.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€650.€€The›€plaintiff€pulled€his€car€onto€the€shoulder,€nose„to„noseÏwith€the€disabled€vehicle,€in€order€to€ð ðjump„startðð€the€disabled€œvehicle.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The›€plaintiff€wasÏstanding€between€the€two€vehicles,€leaning€under€the€hood€of€the€disabled€vehicle,€attachingÏjumper€cables€to€the€œbattery.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóAn›€uninsured€motorist€then€œstruck›€the€plaintiffððs€œvehicle.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ÏThe›€plaintiff€was€crushed€between€the€vehicles€and€seriously€œinjured.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó›Ìà àIn€ò òòòTataó óóó,€as€in€this€case,€the€uninsured€motorist€provision€of€the€insurance€policies€for€theÏtwo€vehicles€provided€coverage€to€persons€ð ðoccupyingðð€a€covered€œvehicle.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€One›€policyÏdefined€ð ðoccupyingðð€as€ð ðin€or€upon€or€entering€into€or€alighting€fromðð€a€covered€œvehicle.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The›Ïother€policy€defined€ð ðoccupyingðð€as€ð ðin,€upon,€getting€in,€on,€out€or€offðð€the€covered€œautomobile.€Ïò òòòId.ó óóó€€The›€Court€focused€on€whether€the€plaintiff€was€ð ðuponðð€either€vehicle€at€the€time€of€theÏœaccident.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€›Ìà àThe€Court€first€found€that€the€term€ð ðuponðð€œwas›€ambiguous€and€required€œconstruction.€€ò òòòId.Ïó óóóat€651.€€It›€then€noted€several€cases€discussing€ð ðoccupyingðð€and€œð ðupon.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€651„52.€€In›Ïparticular,€the€Court€cited€ò òòòUtica€Mutual€Insurance€Co.€v.€œContrisciane›ó óóó,€€473€A.2d€1005Ïœ(Pa.€1984),›€in€which€œcertain€›€œcriteria›€were€established€to€determine€whether€the€plaintiff€wasÏð ðoccupyingðð€a€œvehicle.€€ò òòòTataó óóó,€848€S.W.2d€at€652.€€These€criteria€required€determining€whether:›ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€there€is€a€causal€relation€or€connection€between€the€injury€and€the€use€of€theÏinsured€vehicle;ÌÌà8 à(2)€€the€person€asserting€coverage€must€be€in€a€reasonably€close€geographicÏproximity€to€the€insured€vehicle,€although€the€person€need€not€be€actually€touchingÏit;ÌÌà8 à(3)€€the€person€must€be€vehicle€oriented€rather€than€highway€or€sidewalk€oriented€atÏthe€time;€and€ÌÌà8 à(4)€€the€person€must€also€be€engaged€in€a€transaction€essential€to€the€use€of€theÏvehicle€at€the€time.ÌÌÓÓœò òòòId.ó óóó,€(quoting›€ò òòòUticaó óóó,€473€A.2d€at€œ1009).›€€The€Court€œin€ò òòòTataó óóó€then›€analyzed€the€facts€in€light€of€theÏò òòòUticaó óóó€œcriteria:›ÌÓÓà8 àœ.€.€.[T]he›€facts€in€this€case€show€that€the€plaintiffððs€relationship€with€each€vehicleÏwas€within€the€meaning€of€ð ðupon.ðð€€The€plaintiff€had€not€severed€his€relationshipÏwith€the€Glidewell€Jeep€which€was€being€used€to€ð ðjump„startðð€the€Horton€vehicle.€ÏHe€was€in€very€close€geographic€and€spatial€proximity€to€both€vehicles,€indeedÏunder€the€hood€of€the€Horton€car,€and€he€was€directly€engaged€in€activitiesÏinvolving€both€vehicles.€€These€factual€circumstances€constitute€the€location€orÏposition€described€by€ð ðupon,ðð€and€the€plaintiffððs€relationship€with€each€vehicle€isÏwithin€the€policy€definition€of€ð ðoccupying.ðð€€The€plaintiff,€therefore,€is€an€ð ðinsuredððÏunder€both€.€.€.€œpolicies.̛̜ÓÓò òòòId.›€ó óóóat€653.̜Ǜà àThe€term€ð ðoccupyingðð€was€also€discussed€in€ò òòòYounger€v.€Reliance€Insurance€Co.ó óóó,Ï884€S.W.2d€453€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€In€ò òòòYoungeró óóó,€the€decedent€Younger€was€an€employee€of€anÏelectric€œcompany.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€453.€€One›€evening,€Younger€and€several€other€employees€wereÏdispatched€to€repair€downed€power€œlines.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóYounger›€parked€his€truck€near€the€highway€andÏwent€into€a€ditch€near€the€highway€to€work€on€the€power€œlines.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€454.€€An›€uninsured€motoristÏhit€Youngerððs€truck€and€went€down€into€the€ditch,€killing€œYounger.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó›Ìà àThe€ò òòòYoungeró óóó€court€applied€the€criteria€utilized€in€œò òòòTataó óóó›€and€concluded€that€Younger€wasÏnot€ð ðoccupyingðð€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€the€accident:ÌÓÓà8 àœApplying›€the€òòTataóó€analysis,€we€conclude€that€the€facts€of€our€case€show€that€theÏrelationship€of€Younger€with€the€insured€vehicle€was€not€within€the€meaning€ofÏð ðuponðð€and€was€beyond€the€rational€limit€to€the€activity€that€may€be€said€to€beÏencompassed€within€the€term€œð ðoccupying.ðð€€Unlike€the€plaintiff€in€òòTataóó,€YoungerÏð ðseveredðð€his€relationship€with€the€inusred€vehicle.€€He€took€equipment€from€theÏtruck€and€went€into€a€field€or€ditch€to€repair€the€downed€power€lines.€€His€activityÏand€equipment€were€not€dependent€upon€or€directed€towards€the€insured€vehicle.€€›€ÏUnlike€the€plaintiff€in€òòTataóó,€Younger€was€some€distance€from€the€insured€vehicle.€ÏAlthough€there€is€œno›€unequivocal€evidence€in€the€record€as€the€exact€distanceÏbetween€Younger€and€the€bucket€truck€when€he€was€struck€by€Fowler,€bothÏWheeler€and€Patton€stated€in€their€depositions€that€he€was€away€from€the€truck€in€aÏfield€or€ditch.€€Finally,€unlike€the€plaintiff€in€òòTataóó€who€activities€were€focused€uponÏthe€uninsured€vehicles,€Youngerððs€activities€were€focused€on€the€downed€powerÏlines€that€were€some€distance€from€the€bucket€truck.€€He€was€not€engaged€inÏtransactions€essential€to€the€use€of€or€continued€use€of€the€vehicle.€€Accordingly,€weÏhold€that€Younger€was€not€occupying€the€bucket€truck€at€the€time€he€was€struck€byÏFowler€and€thus€is€not€an€insured€within€the€meaning€of€Forked€Deerððs€uninsuredÏmotorist€policy.ÌÌÓÓœò òòòId.€ó óóóat›€456.€€Thus,€in€both€cases,€the€ò òòòUticaó óóó€criteria€were€applied.€€In€ò òòòTataó óóó,€the€court€concludedÏthat€the€plaintiff€was€an€ð ðoccupant,ðð€while€in€ò òòòYoungeró óóó,€the€court€concluded€that€the€decedent€wasÏnot€an€ð ðoccupantðð€and€was€therefore€not€covered.€€Ìà àœIn€this›€case,€Miller€maintains€that€he€was€ð ðoccupyingðð€the€van€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€ÏHe€asserts€that€he€was€ð ðworking€out€ofðð€the€van€to€repair€the€downed€cable€wire.€€He€had€theÏengine€running€and€was€using€the€vehicleððs€lights€to€warn€oncoming€traffic€of€his€presence.€€HisÏwork€area€was€illuminated€by€the€spotlight€œthat›€was€attached€to€the€van.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,ÏMiller€was€three€or€four€feet€from€the€van.€€Consequently,€Miller€argues€that€he€had€not€ð ðseveredÍhis€relationshipðð€with€the€van€and€remained€ð ðvehicle„orientedðð€at€the€time€he€was€struck€by€MabeððsÏvehicle.€Ìœ›à àœIt›€is€undisputed€œthat,€at€the€time€of€the€accident,›€Miller€was€neither€getting€into€the€van€norÏœgetting€out›€of€it.€€œAlthough›€he€was€utilizing€the€lights€from€the€van,€he€was€not€using€the€van€itselfÏat€the€time€of€the€accident.€€There€is€no€ð ðcausal€relationðð€between€Millerððs€use€of€the€van€and€hisÏbeing€struck€by€Mabeððs€vehicle.€€Miller€was€standing€in€the€middle€of€the€road€three€or€four€feetÏfrom€his€van,€closer€than€the€decedent€in€ò òòòYoungeró óóó€but€far€enough€œaway€that›€he€could€not€beÏconsidered€ð ðuponðð€the€vehicle.€€Millerððs€attention€was€clearly€focused€on€using€the€limb€stick€toÏwork€the€cable€wire€through€the€tree€œbranches€and›€was€not€focused€on€his€œvan.€€This›€activity€wasÏin€no€way€ð ðessentialðð€to€the€use€of€the€van.€€œConsequently,›€under€the€criteria€applied€in€ò òòòTataó óóó€andò òòòÏYoungeró óóó,€Miller€was€not€ð ðoccupyingðð€his€work€van€at€the€time€of€his€accident€and€œtherefore€was›Ïnot€covered€under€the€uninsured€motorist€provision€of€the€Glens€Falls€policy.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€Appellants,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€€J.ó ó