ÿWPCó …#†VUNÜ %* 0(0UHX4 ´ 0là 0D/ 0Js 0T½ 0^ 0ho × 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã U,X 0d„ U,è BU>1U6oB)¥DCÎ AM D3^U*‘?» 0@ú/:ûiUdv~¹vÓ7 AO ÆY 0D 0Dc D/§ BÖ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0®ØP 4Ž;&n âP(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularU_A 3|x‹ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òFebruary€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔFor€ease€of€reference,€we€will€refer€to€the€appellees€collectively€asÏ"Greeneville."Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔT.C.A.€ðð€29„14„103€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àAny€person€interested€under€a€deed,€will,€writtenÏcontract,€or€other€writings€constituting€a€contract,Ïor€whose€rights,€status,€or€other€legal€relations€areÏaffected€by€a€statute,€municipal€ordinance,€contract,Ïor€franchise,€may€have€determined€any€question€ofÏconstruction€or€validity€arising€under€the€instrument,Ïstatute,€ordinance,€contract,€or€franchise€and€obtainÏa€declaration€of€rights,€status€or€other€legalÏrelations€thereunder.Ô€%ÔÔ€%XÔÌ KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔWe€express€no€opinion€as€to€whether€Safeco€is€entitled€to€intervene€inÏthe€circuit€court€action€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€24.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ P ÑÔ€&ÔÑ7€ÊçXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌSAFECO€INSURANCE€COMPANY€€€€€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9510„CH„00361ÌÙ€€ÙßL€),(;+'h|kœ` Å `€€LßOF€AMERICA,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€GREENE€COUNTYÏCHANCERY€COURTÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà à€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant,€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà à€)ÌSIMPSON€BRIDGE€COMPANY,€INC.,€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€HONORABLE€DENNIS€H.€INMAN,Ìà à€€€€Defendant„Appellant,€€)€CHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìand€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌWATER€AND€LIGHT€COMMISSION€€€€€)ÌOF€GREENEVILLE€AND€THE€TOWN€OF€)ÌGREENEVILLE,€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà à€€€€Defendants„Appellees.€)€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌDEAN€B.€FARMER€of€HODGES,€DOUGHTY€&€CARSON,€Knoxville,€forÏAppellant€SAFECO€INSURANCE€COMPANY€OF€AMERICA.ÌÌDAVID€THOMAS€BLACK€of€KISER€AND€BLACK,€Maryville,€for€AppellantÏSIMPSON€BRIDGE€COMPANY,€INC.ÌÌRONALD€W.€WOODS€and€DANIEL€D.€COUGHLIN€of€MILLIGAN€&€COLEMAN,ÏGreeneville,€for€Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌà àà àÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€Susano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€is€an€action€brought€by€Safeco€Insurance€Company€ofÏAmerica€(Safeco)€pursuant€to€the€declaratory€judgment€act,€T.C.A.Ïðð€29„14„101,€òòet€seqóó.€€Safeco€is€the€surety€on€a€$488,100Ïperformance€bond€issued€to€the€Water€&€Light€Commission€ofÏGreeneville€and€the€Town€of€Greeneville,€Tennessee€(Greeneville× ƒ. ××  ×).€ÏThe€bond€was€issued€to€secure€the€performance€of€Simpson€BridgeÏCompany,€Inc.'s€(Simpson€Bridge)€obligations€under€a€contract€withÏGreeneville€for€the€construction€of€improvements€to€the€Town'sÏwater€system€as€well€as€the€construction€of€a€new€raw€waterÏpumping€system€(collectively€referred€to€as€"the€project").€ÏGreeneville€and€Simpson€Bridge€were€both€named€as€defendants€inÏthe€complaint.€€The€trial€court€granted€Greeneville's€motion€toÏdismiss.€€In€so€doing,€it€deferred€to€pending€litigation€in€theÏGreene€County€Circuit€Court€involving€those€parties'€competingÏclaims€for€breach€of€the€contract€for€construction€of€the€project.€ÏSafeco€and€Simpson€Bridge€filed€a€joint€appeal€to€this€court.€ÏThey€argue€that€the€Chancellor€erred€since€a€justiciableÏcontroversy€exists€as€to€Safeco's€obligations,€if€any,€toÏGreeneville€under€the€terms€of€the€performance€bond.ÌÌÇà@ àIÌÌà àà àOn€December€13,€1994,€Simpson€Bridge€sent€a€letter€toÏSafeco€stating€that€the€plans€and€specifications€for€the€projectÏwere€defective,€and€that€it€considered€Greeneville€to€be€inÏmaterial€breach€of€the€contract.€€Simpson€Bridge€further€advisedÏSafeco€that€ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[b]ecause€of€that€material€breach,€theÏperformance€bond€issued€by€Safeco€on€thisÏproject€is€no€longer€valid€and€any€obligationsÏSafeco€may€have€had€to€the€Town€have€beenÏdischarged.€.€.€Should€Safeco€decide€toÏcomplete€this€project,€which€we€do€not€thinkÏcan€be€done€given€the€plans€andÏspecifications,€and€the€existing€differingÏsite€conditions,€Safeco€will€be€doing€so€as€aÏvolunteer€and€we€will€not€honor€our€indemnityÏobligations.Ì€ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThis€correspondence€was€followed€by€a€letter€from€GreenevilleÏdated€December€22,€1994,€advising€Safeco€that€Greeneville€hadÏterminated€its€construction€contract€with€Simpson€Bridge,€becauseÏSimpson€Bridge€was€in€material€breach€of€its€contract.€€TheÏfollowing€day,€December€23,€1994,€Safeco€filed€this€declaratoryÏjudgment€action€in€the€Greene€County€Chancery€Court.€Safeco€statedÏin€its€complaint€that€itÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓis€uncertain€as€to€whether€or€not€it€has€anyÏobligation€to€Greeneville€under€theÏperformance€bond€since€it€is€unable€toÏdetermine€the€validity€and€effect€of€SimpsonÏBridge's€contention€that€the€performance€bondÏis€discharged.€€Safeco€is€further€unable€toÏdetermine€whether€it€is€Simpson€Bridge€orÏGreeneville€that€is€in€material€breach€of€itsÏobligations€under€the€construction€contract.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓSignificantly,€Safeco€sought€not€only€a€declaration€of€its€rightsÏand€obligations€under€the€performance€bond,€but€also€"the€rightsÏand€obligations€of€the€parties€under€the€construction€contract."€€ÌÌà àà àOn€February€28,€1995,€Greeneville€filed€a€complaint€forÏbreach€of€the€construction€contract€against€Simpson€Bridge€in€theÏGreene€County€Circuit€Court.€€The€same€day,€Greeneville€filed€aÏmotion€to€dismiss€Safeco's€chancery€court€action.€€As€previouslyÏnoted,€the€Chancellor€granted€Greeneville's€motion.€€He€found€that€ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[b]y€filing€this€declaratory€judgment€action,ÏSafeco€in€effect€has€chosen€the€forum€in€whichÏthe€two€contracting€parties€will€be€requiredÏto€litigate€their€breach€of€contract€actions.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌUnder€the€facts€set€out€in€the€variousÏpleadings,€Safeco€had€no€independent€cause€ofÏaction€against€Greeneville;€its€declaratoryÍjudgment€action,€when€reduced€to€itsÏessentials,€asks€only€that€this€courtÏdetermine€which€of€the€contracting€partiesÏbreached€the€contract.€€The€real€question€is,Ïmay€a€surety€under€a€performance€bond€òòrequireóóÏits€principal€and€the€other€contracting€partyÏto€litigate€their€dispute€in€a€forum€and€at€aÏtime€the€surety€chooses?€€That€question€mustÏbe€answered€in€the€negative.€€ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ(Emphasis€in€original).€€The€sole€issue€before€us€is€whether€theÏChancellor€erred€in€dismissing€Safeco's€action.ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àOur€analysis€begins€with€the€observation€that€a€decisionÏwhether€to€entertain€a€declaratory€judgment€action€is€squarelyÏwithin€a€trial€court's€discretion,€and€that€discretion€has€beenÏdescribed€by€the€Supreme€Court€as€"very€wide"€on€numerousÏoccasions.€€òòò òNewsum€v.€Interstate€Realty€Co.,óóó ó€278€S.W.€56,€57Ï(Tenn.€1925);€ò òòòHinchman€v.€City€Water€óóCo.,ó ó€167€S.W.2d€986,€992Ï(Tenn.€1943);€òòò òSouthern€Fire€and€Cas.€Co.€v.€Cooper,€ó óóó292ÏS.W.2d€177,€178€(Tenn.€1956);€òòò òStandard€Acc.€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏCarvin,€óóó ó400€S.W.2d€235,€236€(Tenn.€1966).€€On€appeal,€the€issueÏfor€this€court€is€whether€the€Chancellor€acted€in€an€arbitraryÏmanner€when€he€refused€Safeco's€request€that€he€"declar[e]€theÍrights€and€obligations€of€the€parties€under€the€constructionÏcontract€and€performance€bond."€€òòSeeóó€òòò òStandard€Acc.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,Ï400€S.W.2d€at€236;€òòSee€alsoóó€òòò òSouthern€Fire€and€Cas.€Co.,€óóó ó292ÏS.W.2d€at€178€("the€action€of€the€Trial€Court€in€refusing€aÏdeclaration€should€not€be€disturbed€by€this,€an€Appellate€Court,Ïunless€such€refusal€be€arbitrary.")ÌÌà àà àThe€primary€purpose€of€the€declaratory€judgment€act€is€Ì"to€settle€and€to€afford€relief€from€uncertainty€and€insecurityÏwith€respect€to€rights,€status,€and€other€legal€relations."€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„14„113.€€Although€the€act€is€"to€be€liberallyÏconstrued€and€administered,"€òòid.,€óóthe€Supreme€Court€has€noted€thatÏ"[n]evertheless,€certain€limitations€must€be€placed€upon€theÏoperation€of€the€statute."€€ò òòòHodges€v.€Hamblen€County,€óóó ó277€S.W.Ï901,€902€(Tenn.€1925);€òòò òCity€of€Johnson€City€v.€Caplan,óóó ó€253ÏS.W.2d€725,€726€(Tenn.€1952).€€A€court€will€not€entertain€aÏrequest€for€a€declaration€regarding€a€merely€theoretical€question,Ïòòò òMiller€v.€Milleróóó ó,€261€S.W.€965,€972€(Tenn.€1924),€nor€will€itÏprovide€an€advisory€opinion€which€may€help€a€party€in€anotherÏtransaction.€€òòò òHodges,€óóó ó277€S.W.€at€902.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€hasÏmade€the€following€observations€regarding€declaratory€judgmentÏactions:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThat€to€maintain€an€action€for€a€declaratoryÏjudgment€a€justiciable€controversy€must€Ìexist€between€persons€with€adverse€interestsÏis€well€settled.€€òòò òJared€v.€Fitzgeraldó óóó,€183ÏTenn.€682,€689,€195€S.W.2d€1,€4€(1946).€€For€aÏcontroversy€to€be€justiciable,€a€real€questionÏrather€than€a€theoretical€one€must€beÏpresented€and€a€real€legally€protectableÏinterest€must€be€at€stake€on€the€part€ofÏplaintiff.€€òòò òCummings€v.€Beeleró óóó,€189€Tenn.Ï151,€156,€223€S.W.2d€913,€915€(1949).€If€theÏcontroversy€depends€upon€a€future€orÏcontingent€event€or€involves€a€theoretical€orÏhypothetical€state€of€facts,€the€controversyÏis€not€justiciable€under€the€TennesseeÏDeclaratory€Judgments€Act.€€òòò òStory€v.€Walkeró óóó,Ï218€Tenn.€605,€607„08,€404€S.W.2d€803,€804Ï(1966);€òòò òUnited€States€Fidelity€&€GuarantyÏCo€v.€Askewó óóó,€183€Tenn.€209,€212„13,€191ÏS.W.2d€533,€534„35€(1946).€€The€DeclaratoryÏJudgments€Act€does€not€give€the€courtsÏjurisdiction€to€render€advisory€opinions€toÏassist€the€parties€or€to€allay€their€fears€asÏto€what€may€occur€in€the€future.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòò òParks€v.€Alexander,€ó óóó608€S.W.2d€881,€891„92€(Tenn.App.€1980).€ÌÌà àà àApplicable€Tennessee€caselaw€has€made€it€clear€that€ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[a]€declaratory€judgment€will€not€determineÏthe€rights€of€parties€upon€a€state€of€factsÏwhich€has€not€arisen,€nor€upon€a€matter€whichÏis€speculative,€òòfuture,€contingent,€óóorÏuncertain.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòò òJared€v.€Fitzgerald,óóó ó€195€S.W.2d€1,€4€(Tenn.€1946)€(Neil,€J.,Ïconcurring)€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòò òParks,€óóó ó608€S.W.2d€at€892;€Ïòòò òHester€v.€Music€Village€U.S.A.,€Inc.,€óóó ó692€S.W.2d€426,€427Ï(Tenn.App.€1985);€òòò òTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏHammond,€óóó ó290€S.W.2d€860,€862€(Tenn.€1956)€("the€court€will€notÏanticipate€the€rights€of€the€parties€in€deciding€future€contingentÏinterests.")€€ÌÌà àà à€In€the€case€at€bar,€Safeco's€rights€as€a€surety€areÏentirely€contingent€upon€a€determination€of€which€party,€SimpsonÏBridge€or€Greeneville€breached€the€contract.€€As€noted€by€theÏChancellor:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓSafeco's€rights€and€liabilities€will€beÏdetermined€by€the€resolution€of€the€underlyingÏdispute€between€Simpson€and€Greeneville€whichÏnecessarily€will€involve€a€determination€ofÏwhich€of€them€breached€their€contract.€€IfÏGreeneville€breached€the€contract,€thenÏSimpson€has€no€further€obligation€toÏGreeneville€under€the€construction€contractÏand,€by€extension,€Safeco's€obligation€asÏsurety€under€the€performance€bond€will€beÏterminated.€€On€the€other€hand,€should€it€beÏdetermined€that€Simpson€breached€the€contract,Ïthen€Simpson€will€be€required€to€answer€inÏdamages€to€the€town€of€Greeneville,€and€SafecoÏwill€be€required€to€either€complete€theÏcontract€on€Simpson's€behalf€or€pay€toÍGreeneville€the€cost€of€completion€of€theÏproject€up€to€the€amount€of€the€bond.€€ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓWe€agree€with€the€Chancellor's€analysis.€€The€primary€parties€atÏinterest€in€the€contract€controversy€are€Simpson€Bridge€andÏGreeneville,€and€Safeco's€rights€are€completely€contingent€on€theÏoutcome€of€that€dispute.€€Safeco,€as€surety,€has€no€obligationsÏunder€the€performance€bond€unless€Simpson€Bridge€has,€withoutÏjustification,€failed€to€perform€its€obligations€under€theÏcontract.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Chancellor€found€that€the€instant€action€was€broughtÏin€anticipation€of€the€breach€of€contract€lawsuit€later€filed€inÏCircuit€Court.€€The€case€of€òòò òTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏHammondóóó ó,€290€S.W.2d€860€(Tenn.€1956)€teaches€that€suchÏ"preemptive€strikes"€are€improper€for€declaratory€judgment:Ìà àÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThe€power€to€render€declaratory€judgmentsÏshould€not€be€exercised€for€the€purpose€ofÏtrying€issues€involved€in€cases€alreadyÏpending,€especially€where€they€can€be€triedÏwith€equal€facility€in€such€cases,€òòor€for€theÏpurpose€of€anticipating€the€trial€of€an€issueÏin€a€court€of€co„ordinate€jurisdictionóó.€ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòId.€óóat€863€(emphasis€in€original).€òò€óóWe€note,€as€did€theÏChancellor,€that€it€is€difficult€to€understand€what,€if€anything,ÏSafeco€would€accomplish€if€this€suit€were€allowed€to€go€forward,Ïother€than€choosing€the€forum.€€òòSee€ò òAetna€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏBellos,ó ó€óó13€S.W.2d€795,€797€(Tenn.€1929)€("we€find€no€ground€onÏwhich€complainant€can€force€defendant€into€a€forum,€and€at€a€time,Ïof€complainant's€choosing.€.€.").€€The€Court€of€Appeals€has€statedÏthat€the€declaratory€judgment€act€"deals€only€with€present€rightsÏthat€have€accrued€under€presently€existing€facts."€€òòò òThird€Nat.ÏBank€in€Nashville€v.€Carver,€ó óóó218€S.W.2d€66,€69€(Tenn.App.Ï1948).€€We€find€that€Safeco€has€no€such€presently„accrued€rightsÏor€obligations.€€Those€rights€will€only€mature€when€the€underlyingÏdispute€is€resolved.ÌÌà àà àOur€holding€today€does€not€preclude€a€surety€on€aÏperformance€bond€from€seeking€a€declaratory€judgment€in€anÏappropriate€case,€even€one€involving€disputed€facts.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ððÏ29„14„108.€€For€example,€if€a€surety€presents€a€question€regardingÏconstruction€or€validity€of€terms€in€a€bond€or€other€relatedÏdocument,€declaratory€judgment€may€well€be€appropriate.€€òòSeeÍóóT.C.A.€ðð€29„14„103.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€In€the€present€case,€however,€Safeco€did€notÏpresent€any€question€or€controversy€regarding€the€construction,Ïinterpretation€or€validity€of€any€instrument€related€to€itsÏperformance€bond;€Safeco€in€essence€sought€only€a€determination€ofÏwhich€party€breached€the€construction€contract.€€That€is€theÏprecise€issue€that€will€be€decided€in€the€pending€circuit€courtÏlitigation.€€In€the€final€analysis,€that€litigation„„without€more„„justifies€the€action€of€the€Chancellor.€€He€correctly€concludedÏthat€it€was€not€appropriate€for€Safeco€to€be€the€moving€party€(asÏit€would€be€as€plaintiff€in€this€action)€in€a€dispute€that€isÏbasically€a€breach€of€contract€controversy€between€Greeneville€andÏSimpson€Bridge.€€They€are€obviously€the€"main€players"€in€thatÏdispute€and€should€be€permitted€to€take€the€lead€roles€in€thatÏcontroversy× ƒ0 ××  ×.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€Chancellor€abused€his€discretionÏwhen€he€dismissed€this€action.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€aforementioned€reasons,€we€affirm€theÏChancellor's€judgment.€€This€matter€is€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€the€collection€of€costs€assessed€there.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€and€assessed€to€the€appellants.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.