ÿWPC{ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b ÉwÕ4åù  0J 0TZ 0^® 0h 0rt 0|æ 0†b 0è 1ux U,í 0À U,Ù U*B)/DCX AM› èv~õ BsvÓ D3c 0@– AOÖÆ% 0Dë D// B^˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -Ó€ DÒ øb3|x J#2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernPp ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓÑ\R€€\Ñ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJuly€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPt dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€‡„XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑCITY€OF€LEWISBURG,€TENNESSEE,à à)Ìand€IMPERIAL€CASUALTY€andà àà à)ÌINDEMNITY€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„CH„00499ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMarshall€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€8205ÌNUTMEG€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à à)Ìa€subsidiary€of€ITT€HARTFORDà àà à)ÌINSURANCE€GROUP,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MARSHALL€COUNTYÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|“€` ç `€€LßAT€LEWISBURG,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€LEE€RUSSELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌC.€ERIC€STEVENSÌGERALD€G.€PATTERSONÌMARY€ELLEN€MORRISÌ25th€Floor,€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„1738Ìà àAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌFRED€B.€HUNT,€JR.Ì202€First€National€Bank€BuildingÌP.€O.€Box€169ÌShelbyville,€Tennessee€37160Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌLEWIS,€J.ÌÇÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àThis€case€presents€only€one€issue€„„€whether€an€exclusion€for€lawÏenforcement€activities€in€a€policy€of€municipal€insurance€issued€by€the€appelleeÏrelieves€it€from€liability€for€the€actions€of€a€policeman€who€misused€the€authority€ofÏhis€office€to€harass€his€ex„wife.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€exclusion€applied€toÏthe€activities€in€question.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àClifford€Gary€Harris€was€a€police€officer,€employed€by€the€City€ofÏLewisburg.€€He€and€his€wife€Mary€Fain€Davidson€Harris€divorced€in€1986.€€TheÏdivorce€decree€granted€the€wife€custody€of€the€coupleððs€daughter.€€After€anÏattempt€at€reconciliation,€which€failed€in€February€1988,€Officer€Harris€allegedlyÏbegan€a€systematic€campaign€of€harrassment€and€intimidation€directed€againstÏhis€ex„wife€and€her€brother,€Thomas€A.€Davidson,€which€led€them€to€file€a€federalÏlawsuit€for€deprivation€of€rights€in€violation€of€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.ÌÌà àà àThe€suit€alleged€many€illegal€acts€performed€under€color€of€law€byÏOfficer€Harris€and€his€fellow€officers,€including€but€not€limited€to€the€filing€of€falseÏreports€accusing€Ms.€Harris€and€her€brother€of€theft;€false€arrest;€false€testimonyÍbefore€a€Marshall€County€Grand€Jury;€and€after€Ms.€Harris€left€the€State€to€escapeÏthe€threats€against€her,€the€swearing€out€of€a€false€warrant€against€her€forÏkidnapping€the€partiesðð€child,€which€resulted€in€her€arrest€and€imprisoment€in€theÏState€of€Alaska.€ÌÌà àà àThe€Chief€of€Police€and€the€City€of€Lewisburg€were€on€notice€of€theÏillegal€activities€of€Officer€Harris€and€his€cohorts,€and€were€named€in€the€suit€forÏfailing€to€investigate,€supervise€or€discipline€their€employees.€€FollowingÏdiscovery,€the€defendants€offered€judgment€in€accordance€with€Rule€68€of€theÏFederal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€offers€were€accepted€by€the€two€plaintiffs.ÏJudgments€totalling€$125,000€were€accordingly€entered,€and€were€paid€in€full.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Imperial€Casualty€and€Indemnity€CompanyÏ(hereinafter€ð ðImperialðð)€conducted€the€defense€in€the€federal€action,€in€accordanceÏwith€a€Law€Enforcement€Professional€Liability€Policy€that€it€had€issued€to€the€CityÏof€Lewisburg.€During€the€same€time€frame,€the€City€possessed€a€Public€EntityÏLiability€Insurance€policy,€issued€by€the€appellee,€Nutmeg€Insurance€CompanyÏ(hereinafter€ð ðNutmegðð).ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€judgment€was€satisfied,€Imperial€and€the€City€of€LewisburgÏfiled€a€complaint€against€Nutmeg€in€state€court,€asking€the€court€to€declareÏNutmeg€liable€under€its€general€liability€policy€for€contribution€towards€theÏjudgment€and€towards€the€costs€and€expenses€of€the€federal€litigation.Ì€€€€€Ìà àà àNutmeg€argued€that€the€following€exclusion€in€its€general€liabilityÏpolicy€operated€to€excuse€it€from€any€responsibility€relating€to€the€defense€of€theÏfederal€claim:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà@ àò òEXCLUSION€„€LAW€ENFORCEMENT€ACTIVITIESó óÌÌThe€policy€of€which€this€endorsement€forms€a€part€doesÏnot€apply€to€bodily€injury,€property€damage,€personalÏinjury€or€errors€or€omissions€injury€arising€out€of€any€act€orÏomission€of€your€police€department€or€any€other€lawÏenforcement€agency€of€yours€including€their€agents€orÏemployees;€but€this€exclusion€does€not€apply€to€bodilyÏinjury,€property€damage,€personal€injury€or€errors€orÏomissions€injury€arising€out€of€the€ownership,Ïmaintenance€or€use€of€your€premises€which€are€notÏcustomarily€incident€to€law€enforcement€activities.ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÒ € ÒÒ „ Òà àà àImperial€argued€that€the€harrassment€of€private€citizens€could€not€beÏconsidered€a€law€enforcement€activity,€and€that€the€exclusion€therefore€did€notÏapply.€The€trial€court€held,€however,€that€as€the€federal€claim€ð ðarose€out€ofðð€acts€orÏomissions€by€the€police€department,€the€exclusion€was€effective.€€The€courtÏentered€judgment€for€Nutmeg,€and€this€appeal€followed.€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àImperialððs€argument€on€appeal€relies€on€the€well€established€ruleÏthat€any€ambiguity€in€an€insurance€policy€must€be€construed€against€the€insurerÏwhich€drafted€the€policy,€and€in€favor€of€coverage€for€the€insured.òò€€Palmer€v.€StateÏFarm€Mutual€Auto€Ins.Co.óó,€614€S.W.2d€788,€789€(Tenn.€1981).ÌÌà àà à€à àà àImperial€notes€that€there€is€no€definition€of€ð ðlaw€enforcementÏactivitiesðð€in€the€policy,€and€contends€that€the€scope€of€the€exclusion€should€beÏcontrolled€by€the€usual€and€ordinary€meaning€of€that€term.€€The€appellant€urgesÏthis€court€to€be€guided€by€the€reasoning€of€the€Pennsylvania€Federal€DistrictÏCourt,€which€discussed€the€definition€of€the€disputed€phrase€in€the€case€ofÏòòImperial€Casualty€&€Indemnity€Co.€v.€Home€Insurance€Co.óó,€727€F.Supp.€917€(M.D.ÏPa),€affd,€909€F2d.€1476€(3rd€Cir.€1990).ÌÌà àà à€The€above„mentioned€case€arose€from€the€wrongful€death€of€anÏinmate€in€a€county€jail.€€The€court€held€that€a€law€enforcement€exclusion€in€theÏcountyððs€general€liability€policy€did€not€protect€the€insurer€from€liability,€becauseÏthe€incarceration€of€prisoners€fell€outside€the€usual€and€ordinary€meaning€of€lawÏenforcement,€which€the€court€found€to€be€limited€to€the€preservation€of€the€peace,Ïthe€discovery€of€violations€of€criminal€laws€and€ordinances,€and€the€arrest€ofÏoffenders.€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€do€not€quarrel€with€the€logic€of€the€U.S.€District€CourtððsÏopinion,€it€does€not€appear€to€be€on€point€with€the€case€before€us.€€TheÏPennsylvania€court€based€its€decision€on€a€distinction€it€drew€between€twoÏlegitimate€and€closely€related€functions€of€government.€€In€the€present€case€theÏappellant€is€urging€us€to€order€coverage€by€distinguishing€between€legitimate€andÏillegitimate€uses€of€law€enforcement€powers.ÌÌà àà àThe€case€cited€by€the€appellee€in€rebuttal,€òòMurdock€v.€Dinsmooróó,Ï892€F.2d€7€(1st€Cir.€1989),€arose€from€the€kidnapping€and€beating€of€JohnÏMurdock€by€members€of€the€Gilsum,€New€Hampshire€police€force,€acting€inÏconcert€with€three€private€citizens,€in€an€attempt€to€recover€stolen€marijuana.€€TheÏtown€of€Gilsum€sought€coverage€under€a€Public€Officials€Liability€Policy€issued€byÏNational€Grange€Mutual€Insurance€Company.€€The€policy€contained€an€exclusionÏð ðfor€hazards€arising€out€of€the€operation€of€the€insuredððs€police€department,ðð€andÏthe€insurer€denied€coverage.€The€First€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€theÏFederal€District€Courtððs€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€insurer,€citing€ð ðtheÏwidely€accepted€practice€of€interpreting€the€phrase€ððarising€out€ofðð€broadly€andÏcomprehensively.ðð€892€F.2d€at€8.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€seeks€to€distinguish€òòMurdockóó€on€two€bases:€ImperialÏargues€first€that€while€the€Gilsum€police€officers€may€have€exceeded€theirÍauthority€by€beating€Mr.€Murdock,€there€is€no€indication€in€the€opinion€that€theyÏwere€acting€solely€for€personal€gain,€as€opposed€to€pursuing€legitimate€lawÏenforcement€ends.€Second,€the€òòMurdockóó€opinion€does€not€indicate€whether€theÏexclusion€being€construed€contained€any€reference€to€ð ðlaw€enforcement€activitiesððÏsuch€as€is€to€be€found€in€the€Nutmeg€exclusion.€€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€appellant€is€correct€to€conclude€that€the€òòMurdockóó€case€isÏalso€not€completely€on€point,€we€agree€with€the€appellee€that€the€phrase€ð ðarisingÏout€ofðð€is€meant€to€be€interpreted€broadly€rather€than€narrowly.€€We€also€agree€thatÏthe€scope€of€the€exclusion€Nutmeg€relies€upon€must€be€determined€by€the€plainÏmeaning€of€its€text,€rather€than€by€its€heading,€contrary€to€the€implications€of€theÏappellantððs€argument.€€See€òòWallingford€v.€Hartford€Accident€and€Indemnity€Co.óó,Ï649€A.2d€530,€533€(f.n.4)€(Conn.€1994).ÌÌà àà àLike€the€trial€court,€we€find€there€to€be€no€ambiguity€in€the€phraseÏð ðarising€out€of€any€act€or€omission€of€your€police€department€or€other€lawÏenforcement€agency€of€yours€including€their€agents€of€employees.ðð€€The€questionÏthat€determines€exclusion€from€coverage€therefore€is€whether€the€defendantÏofficers€were€agents€or€employees€of€the€insuredððs€law€enforcement€agency,€andÏthe€proof€indicates€that€they€were€both.ÌÌà àà à€The€disputed€exclusion€makes€no€distinction€between€actsÏperformed€by€employees€of€law€enforcement€agencies€which€fall€within€the€scopeÏof€their€employment,€and€those€which€do€not.€€We€note,€however,€that€theÏdefendant€officers€appear€to€have€been€on€duty€when€they€used€theÏaccoutrements€of€their€authority,€such€as€uniform,€badge€and€police€cruiser€toÏintimidate€and€to€harrass€their€alleged€victims.€€In€so€doing,€they€were€acting€as€atÏleast€ostensible€agents€of€the€law€enforcement€agencies€with€whose€authorityÏthey€were€clothed.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Marshall€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àÔ% € Ô