ÿWPC ¨tmûGŸãD1kN|×YÛb÷H{SRBž³ÄS,Îþj^ÖH¼¶|yÑo&­„m…£gã9 sbç—È6ð`ÖšÙ|¶‡Œ1­Skžè@‰ø^t…µ%Z=µNa\ÿ·«þ•&ù;wÁ Ìj/¿¶±&Vw]âTÛh=K<ÂWx¶ƒNÙƒXVÃ.¬˜®Ð›Ñ;˜}Ñ 0þéÁž­¬â4Y$ï'ëx漡¹ “ŸLá8øË?ºŸ«g7mLÅ©95ÕÀi0&%Õ‹¢óÂþ[Yµ#.ĭɃ-Š~fÐøúÉF%0 ‚Ø5¤ÂâTžï`_Íñ4‹õOf}5”À?ŸU]Ïe_æ¡)}V8Ê5|DO“¹\ù{ÆÒ6³Ú £\€1IHÅ6xKG`d#(î:'aã¼ ÙG„ÿDùENÇÎp[:"!Zö–£œ%Ò#G[8T5Þ¬¯¬æM-rš‡jý÷ÄÜ¡ˆ³¾ÃÝîXEj˜ìiῦڗÅ2™ìu{.)I˜-¡EawöhÀzíäZÇÅ|ÿ ¹øÊ=‘†WŒ^,I¦n† %ôì;ðJ5ö§nÎŒp|íá˜Ab#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular/‡a-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptš‚,-ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2_A$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»Ô d(|3 Q$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 Q$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D5»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼D5»»»ÔÑ8€ñXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îLœî»¼D5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼D5»îîLœ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAPRIL€4,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XñX»¼D5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼D5»XXñò#ÔTIMOTHY€J.€Ô_ÔMIELEÔ_Ô€and€wife,€LINDA€S.€Ô_ÔMIELEÔ_Ô,€Individually,€and€d/b/aÐ úJ ÐÔ_ÔMIELEÔ_Ô€HOMESòòóó€v.€ZURICH€U.S.òòóóÔ‡XñX»¼D5Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„3615„I;€The€Honorable€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01104„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€1,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XñXXXñÔThis€appeal€arises€from€a€complaint€filed€against€the€Appellants€in€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ ŒÜ ÐWilliamson€County€for€negligence,€breach€of€contract,€and€violation€of€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ xÈ ÐProtection€Act€relating€to€the€construction€of€and€failure€to€repair€a€new€home.€€The€Appellants€wereÐ d´ Ðinsured€by€the€Appellee.€€Following€a€jury€trial,€the€jury€found€that€the€Appellants€breached€theÐ P  Ðconstruction€contract.€€The€jury€also€found€that€the€Appellants€were€guilty€of€negligence€and€engagedÐ <Œ Ðin€willfully€deceptive€or€unfair€actions.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€against€the€Appellants€forÐ (x Ð$98,500.00.€€The€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€doubled€the€damages€under€the€TennesseeÐ d ÐConsumer€Protection€Act€and€awarded€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs€in€the€total€amount€of€$303,248.55.€Ð P ÐThe€Appellee€paid€$48,500.00€in€satisfaction€of€the€judgment.Ð ì< ÐÌà  àThe€Appellants€filed€a€complaint€against€the€Appellee€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€DavidsonÐ Ä ÐCounty.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€the€Appellee€breached€its€obligation€to€pay€the€balance€of€theÐ ° Ðjudgment,€acted€in€bad€faith€by€denying€coverage€to€the€Appellants,€and€willfully€and€knowinglyÐ œì Ðviolated€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€The€Appellee€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Appelleeððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€AppellantsÐ t Ä Ðappeal€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Appellee.€€For€the€reasons€statedÐ `!°  Ðherein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision.Ð L"œ! ÐÔ#†XñXXXñ¢#ÔÔ#†¼D5»XXñ#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼D5ÔÌÓ–ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ %` $ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼D5»àXñ #ÔÔ‡XñX.¼D5ÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,óóÐ è&8"& Ðand€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ô'$#' ÐÌThomas€C.€Ô_ÔCortsÔ_Ô,€Julie€Ô_ÔBhattacharyaÔ_Ô€Peak,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppellantsÐ ¬)ü$) ÐÌWilliam€H.€Tate,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ „+Ô&+ ÐÓ« ÓÌò òÐ \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_ÔOPINIONó óÔ#†¼D5»XXñÚ #ÔÔ‡XñX»¼D5ÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼D5»XXñ[#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼D5ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡XñXXXñÔà@ìàI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àOn€February€18,€1997,€John€and€Catherine€Murray€(ð ðthe€Murraysðð)€filed€a€complaint€in€theÐ `° ÐChancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€against€the€Appellants,€Timothy€J.€Miele€(ð ðMr.€Mieleðð)€andÐ L œ Ðwife,€Linda€S.€Miele€(ð ðMrs.€Mieleðð),€d/b/a€Miele€Homes€(collectively€ð ðthe€Mielesðð)€allegingÐ 8 ˆ Ðnegligence,€breach€of€contract,€and€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€TheÐ $ t Ðcomplaint€alleged€poor€workmanship€in€the€Mielesðð€construction€of€the€Murraysðð€home€andÐ  ` Ðdeceptive€or€unfair€conduct€in€failing€to€repair€the€poor€workmanship€as€required€by€an€addendumÐ ü L  Ðto€the€construction€contract.€€€The€Mieles€were€insured€by€the€Maryland€Insurance€Group€(ð ðMarylandÐ è 8  ÐInsuranceðð)€pursuant€to€a€commercial€general€liability€insurance€policy.€€òòóóThe€Mieles€submitted€theÐ Ô$  ÐMurraysðð€complaint€to€Maryland€Insurance.€On€February€27,€1997,€Maryland€InsuranceÐ À  Ðacknowledged€receipt€of€the€complaint.€€On€March€7,€1997,€Maryland€Insurance€sent€the€Mieles€aÐ ¬ü  Ðreservation€of€rights€letter€advising€them€that€the€claims€for€breach€of€contract,€breach€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€and€construction€defects€where€no€property€damage€existsÐ „Ô  Ðwould€not€be€covered€under€the€insurance€policy.€€€The€reservation€of€rights€letter€referred€to€theÐ pÀ Ðrelevant€portions€of€the€insurance€policy€and€stated€the€following:Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€on€the€above€mentioned€policy€language€and€the€allegationsÐ 4„ Ðà  àà ` àcontained€within€the€Complaint,€we€will€continue€our€investigationÐ  p Ðà  àà ` àinto€this€incident€without€waiving€any€right€to€deny€coverage€in€theÐ  \ Ðà  àà ` àfuture.€€However,€we€will€continue€to€provide€you€a€defense€andÐ øH Ðà  àà ` àpartial€indemnity€for€the€property€damage€as€a€result€of€the€allegedÐ ä4 Ðà  àà ` àwater€damage.à h àÐ Ð  ÐÌÌà  àOn€October€23,€1998,€Assurance€Company€of€America€(ð ðAssuranceðð)€filed€a€motion€toÐ ”ä Ðintervene€for€the€sole€purpose€of€requesting€that€the€jury€itemize€any€judgment€awarded.€€€OnÐ €Ð ÐOctober€27,€1998,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€the€motion€to€intervene.€€On€October€30,Ð l¼ Ð1998,€a€jury€trial€was€held.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Murrays€for€actual€damagesÐ X ¨ Ðin€the€amount€of€$98,500.00,€which€included€$48,500.00€in€water€intrusion€damage.€€The€jury€foundÐ D!” Ðthat€the€Mieles€breached€the€addendum€to€the€construction€contract€because€they€refused€to€makeÐ 0"€  Ðthe€repairs€that€they€agreed€to€make€in€the€addendum.€€€The€jury€also€found€that€Mr.€Miele€was€guiltyÐ #l! Ðof€negligence,€that€Mr.€Mieleððs€actions€were€deceptive€or€unfair,€and€that€Mr.€Mieleððs€actions€wereÐ $X" Ðwillful.€€Based€on€the€juryððs€finding€that€Mr.€Mieleððs€actions€were€willful,€the€trial€court€trebled€theÐ ô$D # Ðactual€damages€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€for€a€damages€award€of€$295,500.00.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€trial€court€also€awarded€attorneyððs€fees€in€the€amount€of€$98,500.00€and€costs€in€the€amount€ofÐ Ì&"% Ð$7,748.55.€€On€December€22,€1998,€the€trial€court€reduced€the€total€judgment€to€$303,248.55€toÐ ¸'#& Ðallow€for€double€damages€rather€than€treble€damages.€€òòóóFollowing€entry€of€the€judgment,€MarylandÐ ¤(ô#' ÐInsurance€paid€$48,500.00€toward€satisfaction€of€the€judgment.€€Maryland€Insurance€refused€to€payÐ )à$( Ðthe€remaining€$254,748.55€of€the€judgment.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOn€December€14,€1999,€the€Mieles€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€DavidsonÐ ° ÐCounty€against€the€Appellee,€Zurich€U.S.,€the€successor€in€interest€to€Maryland€Insurance.€€TheÐ œì Ðcomplaint€alleged€that€Maryland€Insurance€breached€its€obligation€pursuant€to€the€Mielesðð€insuranceÐ ˆØ Ðpolicy€to€pay€the€balance€of€the€judgment,€acted€in€bad€faith€in€denying€coverage€to€the€Mieles,€andÐ tÄ Ðwillfully€and€knowingly€violated€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€by€denying€coverage€underÐ `° Ðthe€insurance€policy.€€The€complaint€admitted€that€Maryland€Insurance€had€paid€$48,500.00€towardÐ L œ Ðsatisfaction€of€the€judgment€and€that€the€remaining€$50,000.00€in€actual€damages€was€properlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðexcluded€from€coverage€under€the€terms€of€the€insurance€policy.€€€The€complaint€alleged,€however,Ð $ t Ðthat€Maryland€Insurance€should€have€paid€$204,748.55€which€included€the€double€damages€portionÐ  ` Ðof€the€judgment,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costs€as€well€as€a€25%€penalty€in€the€amount€of€$51,187.14.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€February€11,€2000,€the€parties€agreed€that€Assurance€was€the€proper€defendant,€andÐ Ô$  ÐAssurance€was€substituted€as€the€defendant.€€On€March€16,€2000,€Assurance€filed€an€answer€to€theÐ À  Ðcomplaint.€€On€January€30,€2001,€Assurance€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€€On€March€13,Ð ¬ü  Ð2001,€the€Mieles€filed€a€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€supported€by€the€affidavit€ofÐ ˜è  ÐMr.€Miele.€€On€March€27,€2001,€Assurance€filed€a€reply€in€support€of€summary€judgment.€€On€MarchÐ „Ô  Ð30,€2001,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€€The€trial€court€foundÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€damages€sought€by€the€Mieles€were€not€covered€under€the€insurance€policy.€€The€trial€courtÐ \¬ Ðdeclined€to€rule€whether€the€$48,500.00€paid€by€Assurance€was€covered€by€the€insurance€policy.€€OnÐ H˜ ÐApril€10,€2001,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Assurance.€Ð 4„ ÐThis€appeal€followed.Ð  p ÐÌà@ìàò òII.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÐ Ð  Ðjudgment€are€well€settled€in€Tennessee.€€òòSee€Carvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð ¼  ÐSummary€judgment€is€to€be€rendered€by€a€trial€court€ð ðif€the€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€toÐ ¨ø Ðinterrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€noÐ ”ä Ðgenuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÐ €Ð Ðof€law.ðð€€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óó€56.04.€€In€ruling€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€andÐ l¼ Ðthe€appellate€court€must€consider€the€matter€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€andÐ X ¨ Ðmust€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Carvellóó,€900€S.W.2d€atÐ D!” Ð26;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€(Tenn.€1993).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€party€seeking€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuineÐ $X" Ðissue€of€material€fact€exists.€€òòSee€Bain€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòDownen€v.Ð ô$D # ÐAllstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).€€Once€the€moving€party€satisfies€that€burden,Ð à%0!$ Ðthe€burden€then€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts€establishing€that€there€areÐ Ì&"% Ðdisputed,€material€facts€creating€a€genuine€issue€to€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee€Byrdóó,€847Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€at€215.€€In€appeals€from€grants€of€summary€judgment,€the€appellate€court€must€decideÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhether€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€Rule€56.€€òòSee€Hill€v.€Chattanoogaóó,€533€S.W.2d€311,€312Ð )à$( Ðâ â(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975).€€The€appellate€court€must€make€an€entirely€fresh€determination€because€onlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðquestions€of€law€are€presented;€no€presumption€of€correctness€accompanies€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€Ð ° ÐòòSee€id.óóÐ œì Ðâ âÌà@00ìàò òIII.€€Law€and€Analysisó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€following€issues,€as€we€perceive€them,€are€presented€for€our€review:€Ð L œ ÐÌ1.€€Whether€the€insurance€policy€provides€coverage€to€the€Mieles€for€double€damages€awarded€underÐ $ t Ðthe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costs;Ð  ` Ð2.€€Whether€Assurance€is€estopped€from€denying€that€there€was€underlying€coverage€for€the€actualÐ ü L  Ðdamages;Ð è 8  Ð3.€€Whether€Mrs.€Miele€is€entitled€to€coverage€under€the€insurance€policy€due€to€any€negligent€orÐ Ô$  Ðwillful€acts€of€Mr.€Miele.Ð À  ÐÌWe€will€examine€each€issue€in€turn.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€first€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€insurance€policy€provides€coverageÐ pÀ Ðto€the€Mieles€for€double€damages€awarded€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððsÐ \¬ Ðfees,€and€costs.€€As€a€result€of€the€juryððs€finding€that€Mr.€Mieleððs€actions€were€willful,€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðawarded€the€Murrays€double€damages€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,Ð 4„ Ðand€costs.€€Assurance€denied€coverage€to€the€Mieles€for€the€double€damages€awarded€under€theÐ  p ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costs.€€The€insurance€policy€states€that€itÐ  \ Ðdoes€not€cover€ð ðexpected€or€intended€injuryðð€defined€as€ð ððð[b]odily€injuryðð€or€ððproperty€damageððÐ øH Ðexpected€or€intended€from€the€standpoint€of€the€insured.ðð€€Assurance€claims€that€willful€conductÐ ä4 Ðresulting€in€double€damages€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costsÐ Ð  Ðare€not€covered€under€the€insurance€policy€because€it€is€damage€ð ðexpected€or€intended€from€theÐ ¼  Ðstandpoint€of€the€insured.ðð€€In€its€order€granting€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€agreed€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðdouble€damages€awarded€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costsÐ ”ä Ðsought€by€the€Mieles€are€excluded€by€the€insurance€policy.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€òòTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€Co.€v.€Evansóó,€814€S.W.2d€49€(Tenn.€1991),€theÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€interpreted€an€insurance€policy€exclusion€similar€to€the€exclusion€in€theÐ D!” Ðcase€at€bar.€€Tennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€issued€a€liability€insurance€policy€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.Ð 0"€  ÐEvans€which€stated€that€it€excluded€claims€for€property€damage€ð ðexpected€or€intended€by€an€insuredÐ #l! Ðperson.ðð€€òòSee€id.óó€at€53.€€Clinton€Bank€informed€Mrs.€Evans€that€Mr.€Evans€had€a€safety€deposit€boxÐ $X" Ðat€the€bank€which€contained€$186,000.00.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€51.€€Believing€the€money€to€be€ð ðdrug€money,ððÐ ô$D # ÐMrs.€Evans€took€the€$186,000.00€to€her€home€and€burned€the€money.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Three€weeks€later,Ð à%0!$ ÐClinton€Bank€contacted€Mrs.€Evans€and€informed€her€that€the€safety€deposit€box€did€not€belong€toÐ Ì&"% ÐMr.€Evans€but€rather€to€another€bank€patron,€Mr.€Dillard.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€52.€€Clinton€Bank€demanded€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐMrs.€Evans€return€the€$186,000.00,€and€Mrs.€Evans€refused.€€òòSee€idóó.€€Clinton€Bank€reimbursed€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ð$186,000.00€to€Mr.€Dillardððs€estate€and€sued€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Evans.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Tennessee€FarmersÐ )à$( ÐMutual€Insurance€filed€a€declaratory€judgment€action€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€CountyÐ |*Ì%) Ðseeking€a€declaration€that€it€was€not€obligated€to€afford€coverage€to€Mrs.€Evans€based€on€theÐ h+¸&* Ðinsurance€policyððs€exclusion€for€intentional€actions.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€50.€€Following€discovery,€TennesseeÐ ° ÐFarmers€Mutual€Insurance€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€53.€€The€chancery€courtÐ œì Ðfound€that€the€exclusion€was€applicable€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Evans€and€granted€summary€judgment€inÐ ˆØ Ðfavor€of€Tennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€court€of€appeals€affirmed€the€chancery€courtððs€conclusion€with€respect€to€Mrs.€Evans€butÐ L œ Ðreversed€with€respect€to€Mr.€Evans.€€òòSee€id.óó€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€granted€Mrs.€EvansððÐ 8 ˆ Ðpermission€to€appeal.€€On€appeal,€the€supreme€court€recognized€a€nationwide€split€regarding€theÐ $ t Ðinterpretation€of€an€insurance€policy€exclusion€for€liability€for€property€damage€intended€or€expectedÐ  ` Ðby€the€insured.€€òòSee€id.óó€€After€examining€the€various€approaches€to€such€an€exclusion,€the€supremeÐ ü L  Ðcourt€adopted€the€following€approach€in€Tennessee:Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` à[I]n€order€to€find€that€an€intended€or€expected€acts€exclusion€applies,€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àit€must€be€established€that€the€insured€intended€the€act€òòandóó€also€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àintended€or€expected€that€injury€would€result.€€These€are€separate€and€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àdistinct€inquiries€because€many€intentional€acts€produce€unexpected€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àresults€and€comprehensive€liability€insurance€would€be€somewhat€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àpointless€if€protection€were€precluded€if,€for€example,€the€intent€to€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àcause€harm€was€not€an€essential€(and€required)€showing.€€The€intent€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àitself€may€be€actual€or€inferred€from€the€nature€of€the€act€and€the€Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àaccompanying€reasonable€foreseeability€of€harm.€€It€is€immaterial€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àthat€the€actual€harm€was€of€a€different€character€or€magnitude€or€nature€Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àthan€that€intended.Ð øH ÐÌòòId.óó€at€55.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àApplying€the€foregoing€test€to€the€facts€in€the€case€at€bar,€we€find€that€the€insurance€policyÐ ¨ø Ðexclusion€applies,€and€the€double€damages€awarded€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,Ð ”ä Ðattorneyððs€fees,€and€costs€are€excluded€by€the€insurance€policy.€€The€jury€found€that€Mr.€Miele€actedÐ €Ð Ðwillfully€in€failing€to€make€the€repairs€that€he€agreed€to€make€under€the€addendum€to€theÐ l¼ Ðconstruction€contract.€€The€juryððs€finding€that€Mr.€Mieleððs€actions€were€willful€satisfies€the€firstÐ X ¨ Ðprong€of€the€test€that€the€insured€intended€the€act.€€In€addition€to€intentionally€failing€to€make€theÐ D!” Ðagreed€repairs,€it€is€clear€that€Mr.€Miele€intended€or€expected€that€the€Murrays€would€suffer€an€injuryÐ 0"€  Ðif€the€repairs€were€not€made.€€As€a€result,€we€find€that€the€second€prong€of€the€test,€that€the€insuredÐ #l! Ðintended€or€expected€that€injury€would€result,€is€satisfied.€€Because€Mr.€Miele€intended€the€act€andÐ $X" Ðintended€or€expected€that€injury€would€result,€the€insurance€policy€exclusion€applies€to€the€case€atÐ ô$D # Ðbar.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€insurance€policy€does€not€provide€coverage€to€the€Mieles€forÐ à%0!$ Ðdouble€damages€awarded€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costs.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€Assurance€was€estopped€from€denyingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€there€was€underlying€coverage€for€the€actual€damages.€€Because€the€insurance€policy€did€notÐ )à$( Ðprovide€coverage€to€the€Mieles€for€the€double€damages€award€under€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ |*Ì%) ÐProtection€Act,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€costs,€we€find€that€it€is€not€necessary€to€determine€this€issue.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€third€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€Mrs.€Miele€is€entitled€to€coverage€underÐ ° Ðthe€insurance€policy€due€to€any€negligent€or€willful€acts€of€Mr.€Miele.€€The€Mieles€claim€that€the€juryÐ œì Ðfound€that€Mr.€Mieleððs€actions€were€willful€but€did€not€make€a€specific€finding€as€to€Mrs.€MieleððsÐ ˆØ Ðactions.€€As€a€result,€the€Mieles€argue€that€Mrs.€Miele€was€an€innocent€co„insured€who€was€entitledÐ tÄ Ðto€coverage€under€the€insurance€policy.€€We€disagree.€€Under€Tennessee€law,€partners€are€liable€forÐ `° Ðthe€wrongful€acts€of€their€co„partners.€€Section€61„1„112€of€the€Tennessee€Code€states:Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhere,€by€any€wrongful€act€or€omission€of€any€partner€acting€inÐ $ t Ðà  àà ` àthe€ordinary€course€of€the€business€of€the€partnership,€or€withÐ  ` Ðà  àà ` àthe€authority€of€his€copartners,€loss€or€injury€is€caused€to€anyÐ ü L  Ðà  àà ` àperson,€not€being€a€partner€in€the€partnership,€or€any€penalty€isÐ è 8  Ðà  àà ` àincurred,€the€partnership€is€liable€therefore€to€the€same€extentÐ Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àas€the€partner€so€acting€or€omitting€to€act.Ð À  ÐÌòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€61„1„112€(1989).Ð ˜è  Ðà  àÌSection€61„1„114(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€states:€ð ðExcept€as€provided€in€subsection€(b),€all€partnersÐ pÀ Ðare€liable,€jointly€and€severally€for€everything€chargeable€to€the€partnership.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ððÐ \¬ Ð61„1„113(a)€(Supp.€2000).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Miele€are€partners€in€Miele€Homes.€€The€trial€court€instructedÐ  p Ðthe€jury€ð ðthat€because€Defendants€Tim€and€Linda€Miele€are€partners€and€co„owners€of€Miele€Homes,Ð  \ Ðyou€are€instructed€that€any€liability€that€you€find€as€to€Tim€Miele€will€also€be€imputed€to€Linda€MieleÐ øH Ðand€both€will€ultimately€be€responsible€for€that€liability.€€You€will€not€be€asked€to€make€a€decisionÐ ä4 Ðbetween€the€two€of€them.ðð€€The€jury€found€that€Mr.€Miele€was€liable€to€the€Murrays€in€that€he€wasÐ Ð  Ðguilty€of€negligence€and€his€actions€were€willfully€deceptive€or€unfair.€€We€find€that€Mrs.€Miele€wasÐ ¼  Ðnot€an€innocent€co„insured€because€the€liability€imposed€on€Mr.€Miele€was€imputed€to€Mrs.€MieleÐ ¨ø Ðas€a€partner€in€Miele€Homes.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€Mrs.€Miele€was€not€entitled€to€coverageÐ ”ä Ðunder€the€insurance€policy.Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àÌà@SS#ìàò òIV.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€areÐ 0"€  Ðtaxed€against€the€Appellants,€Timothy€and€Linda€Miele,€Individually€and€d/b/a€Miele€Homes,€andÐ #l! Ðtheir€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†XñXXXñç#ÔÔ#†¼D5»XXñ¹#ÔÔ€XñX»¼D5ÔÐ $X" ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE