WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 UP@  0J 0T 0^6 0h 0r 0|n 0 0p 1u 0du U> U6B)MDCv AM BU*#Mv~[v D3 0@ AOn 0D4 D/x BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  E ! " # $ D% & ' ( ӀU!3|x3 &@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G d<  9p`(Arial  !#d#   &&   YYY FILED&X October1,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.&AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .    P !ԛ75#XXdd7\RA'\  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEWENDYSETTERS,individuallyand)C/ANO.03A019605CV00161astheparentoftheminors,)McMINNCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTMelanieAnnSettersand)ٜL$'#;+'h|`  `LNicoleKrystalSetters,  )     )  PlaintiffAppellant,)      )      )      )v.      )      )      )      )PERMANENTGENERALASSURANCE )̜CORPORATION,    )      )  DefendantAppellee,)̜      )̜and      )      )      )̜WILLIAMB.SETTERS,   )      )HONORABLEJOHNB.HAGLER,JR.,  Defendant.  )JUDGE̛ForAppellant       ForAppelleeE.L.PARKER,III      JERRYM.MARTINEtowah,Tennessee      Knoxville,Tennessee@ !  OPINION X!ԛ̛̜̜AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.ӛ  Thisisadeclaratoryjudgmentaction.Inthecomplaint,WendySetters(Mrs.Setters)seeksadeclarationthatϜanexclusioninherautomobileinsurancepolicyisinvalidasagainstpublicpolicy;and,alternatively,thattheexclusion,duetoanambiguityintheinsurancepolicy,isunenforceableagainsther.Thesubjectprovisionexcludestheextensionofliabilitycoveragetoaninsuredwhenthatpersonsnegligencecausesinjurytoafamilymember.Relyingonthisexclusion,thedefendant,PermanentGeneralAssuranceCorporation(PermanentGeneral),deniedcoveragewithrespecttoclaimsassertedbyMrs.Settersindividuallyandonbehalfofherchildrenarisingsolelyoutofinjuriessustainedbythechildreninanautomobileaccident.Theaccidentwascaused,inpart,bythenegligentdrivingofherhusband.ThetrialcourtgrantedPermanentGeneralsmotionforjudgmentonthepleadings,findingtheexclusiontobe valid,enforceableandnotviolativeofthepublicpolicyofTennessee.Plaintiffappeals,raisingtwoissuesthatpresentthefollowingquestions:Ӝ 8 1.Isaprovisioninanautomobileinsurancepolicyexcludingcoverageforliabilitytoa familymemberviolativeofthepublicpolicyϜofTennessee?̜ 8 2.IstheliabilitycoverageinthesubjectpolicyambiguoussoastowarrantastrictconstructionagainstPermanentGeneral?̜̀Ǜ@ I  Ourreviewinthiscaseisgovernedbywellestablishedrules:̜ӛ 8 [W]eareboundtotreatasfalseallallegationsof...themovingparty,whicharedenied,andastrueallwellpleadedallegationscontainedinthepleadingsϜof...theopponentofthemotion.See Triggv.MiddleTenn.Elec.MembershipCorp. ,533S.W.2d730,73233(Tenn.App.1975).Inotherwords,onanappealfromanorderallowingajudgmentonthepleadings...allwellpleadedfactsandallreasonableinferencesdrawntherefrommustbeacceptedastrue. Trigg at733(citing Darwinv.TownofCookeville ,170Tenn.508,97S.W.2d838(1936); Rodgersv.Rodgers ,53Tenn.489(1871)).Conclusionsoflawarenotadmittednorshouldjudgmentonthepleadingsbegrantedunlessthemovingpartyisclearlyentitledtojudgment. Trigg at733.̛̜ McClenahanv.Cooley ,806S.W.2d767,769(Tenn.1991).Thus,intheinstantcaseweacceptastrueallwellpleadedfactsinϜthecomplaint.Wemustthendeterminewhether,onthefaceofthatpleading,theplaintiffisentitledtomoveforward.Againstthisbackground,webeginouranalysis.@ II  PermanentGeneralissuedtoMrs.Settersandherhusband,WilliamSetters,anautomobileinsurancepolicy.Thepolicyincludesliabilityinsurancecoveragefor bodilyinjuryorpropertydamageforwhichanyinsuredbecomeslegallyresponsible.Thepolicydefines insuredinpartas youoranyfamilymember.𛀀ItfurtherprovidesthatPermanentGeneralhas nodutytodefendanysuitorsettleanyclaimforbodilyinjuryorpropertydamagenotcoveredunderthispolicy.Thepolicycontainsanumberofexclusions.OneoftheseexclusionsϜisstatedasfollows: 8 A.WedonotprovideLiabilityCoverage  foranyperson:̜@ ***  10.Forbodilyinjurytoyouorany family  member.ӜTheterm familymemberisdefinedinthepolicyas 8 apersonrelatedtoyoubyblood,marriageoradoptionwhoisaresidentofyourhousehold.Thisincludesawardorfosterchild.̛  Soonafterthepolicywentintoeffect,Mr.SetterswasϜdrivinganautomobilewhenhewasinvolvedinacollisionwithanothervehicle.Theaccidentwascaused,atleastinpart,byhisnegligence.TheSettersminorchildren,MelanieAnnSettersandNicoleKrystalSetters,werepassengersinMr.SetterscarϜandwereinjuredintheaccident.Mrs.SetterssubsequentlymadedemanduponPermanentGeneralforpaymentofdamagessustainedasaresultofthechildrensinjuries.Baseduponthe familymemberexclusioninthepolicy,PermanentGeneralrefusedtoϜhonorherclaimsandthislitigationresulted.@ III  ThefirstissueraisedbyMrs.SettersiswhetherenforcementofthepolicysexclusionofliabilitycoverageforinjuriestoafamilymemberviolatesthepublicpolicyofTennessee.Shearguesthatbyexcluding innocentvictimsfromcoverageand unfairlyexposingtheinsuredtoliabilitywithoutcoverage,thisexclusioncontravenesthepublicpolicyofϜTennessee,asexpressedintheFinancialResponsibilityLawof1977,asamended(theAct),T.C.A.5512101etseq.Inherbrief,sheprimarilyreliesuponacasefromWashington, MutualofEnumclawIns.Co. v.Wiscomb ,634P.2d441(Wash.1982).Inthatcase,theSupremeCourtofWashingtondeclaredthatthesetypesoffamilymemberexclusionswerevoidasagainstthepublicϜpolicyofthatstate.Withallduedeferencetothatcourtanditsreasoning,wefindthatthelawofthisjurisdictionisϜotherwise.  TennesseecourtshaveconsistentlyheldthatfamilyϜmemberexclusionsinliabilityinsurancepoliciesarevalid.SeeϜe.g. ,  Holtv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co. ,486S.W.2d734,735(Tenn.1972); OmahaProperty&CasualtyIns.Co.V.Johnson ,866S.W.2d539,541(Tenn.App.1993); BeefNBirdofAmerica,Inc.v.ContinentalCasualtyCo. ,803S.W.2d234,237(Tenn.App.1990);and Dresslerv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co. ,376S.W.2d700,702(Tenn.App.1963).In Holt ,theϜSupremeCourtreaffirmedtheholdingof Dressler that 8 [c]lausesininsurancecontractsexcludingfromcoveragemembersoftheinsuredsfamilyorhouseholdarevalidandbinding. Holt ,486S.W.2dat735(quoting Dressler ,376S.W.2dat702).̜Inmoregeneralterms,thecourtsofthisstatehaveheldthatϜ clearlywordedexclusion[s]thatlimit,butdonotcompletelyϜnegate,othergeneralprovisionswithinapolicy,arenotcontrarytopublicpolicy. BeefNBirdofAmerica ,803S.W.2dat237.̛  Thiscourtaddressedacasesimilartotheinstantcaseintheunreportedcaseof J.C.PenneyCasualtyIns.Co.v.Douglas ,C/ANo.01A019010CH00338,1991WL3311(Tenn.App.,M.S.,filedJanuary18,1991,Cantrell,J.).ThatcaseinvolvedϜtwoquestions:whethertheinsuredsstepsonfellwithinafamilyϜmemberexclusionsimilartotheoneatissuehere,andwhethersuchaclausewasviolativeofpublicpolicy.Asisthecasehere,thefamilymemberexclusionwasallegedtobeinconflictwiththepolicyunderlyingtheAct.Thecourtin J.C.Penney heldthatthestepsonfellwithintheexclusion;andthatthepolicywasconsistentwiththeActsmandateswithrespecttoproofoffinancialresponsibility. Id .1991WL3311at*4.Thecourtalsonotedthatacourtsauthoritytodeclarepublicpolicyisclearlycircumscribed. Id. 󀜀1991WL3311at*3.AsstatedbytheSupremeCourtin Smithv.Gore ,728S.W.2d738(Tenn.1987), 8 [t]heCourtisnotfreetoestablishwhatitsmembersbelievetobethebestpolicyfortheState;rather,wemustdeterminewherepublicpolicyistobefound,whatthespecificpublicpolicyis,andhowitisapplicabletothecaseathand.Ordinarily,theCourtisnottheinstitutionthatiscalledupontodivinethenatureofpublicpolicyinitsmostgeneralterms;thisCourtusuallydecideswhetherornotanycontrollingpublicpolicyhasbeenestablishedordeclaredandthendetermineshowitappliestoaparticularcase.̛̜ Id. at746.Theseprincipleswerefollowedbythecourtin J.C.Penney ,andwebelievetheycontrolhere.  Thelegislativebranchisvestedwiththeprimaryauthoritytoestablishpublicpolicy. Crawfordv.Buckner ,839S.W.2d754,759(Tenn.1992)(citing Hydev.Hyde ,562S.W.2d194,196(Tenn.1978)).WebelievethatanydeterminationthatfamilyϜmemberexclusionsareviolativeofpublicpolicymustbelefttotheGeneralAssembly.WenotethatbodyhashadampleopportunitytoaddressthisissueintheActandelsewhere,yethasfailedtoϜdoso.̛  Therecentcaseof BroadwellbyBroadwellv.Holmes ,871S.W.2d471(Tenn.1994),doesnotcompelacontraryconclusion.TheretheSupremeCourtlimitedparentalimmunity,holdingthat 8 [p]arentalimmunityinTennesseeislimitedtoconductthatconstitutestheexerciseofparentalauthority,theperformanceofparentalsupervision,andtheprovisionofparentalcareandcustody.̛ Id .at47677.The Broadwell casefollowedonthe heelsoftheabolitionofthedoctrineofspousalimmunityintheSupremeCourtϜcaseof Davisv.Davis ,657S.W.2d753(Tenn.1983).Mrs.Settersarguesthatthesedecisionsshouldbe logicallyextendedtoinvalidateanyclauseinaninsurancepolicythatexcludesliabilitycoverageforinjuriestoaspouseorotherfamilymember.Wedisagree.̛  Thecaseof Elamv.ProtectiveIns.Co.andPermanentGeneralAssuranceCorp. ,1987WL13829(Tenn.App.,W.S.,filedJuly16,1987,Nearn,J.),revdonothergrounds,1990WL458(Tenn.,filedJanuary8,1990,notdesignatedforpublication,OBrien,J.),addressedtheeffectof Davis abolitionofspousalimmunityonafamilymemberexclusioninaninsurancepolicythatoperatedtodenyliabilitycoveragetoawifewhosehusbandwasinjuredasaresultoftheformersnegligence.Thecourtfoundthatthe Davis decision,whichaddressedwhetheronespousecouldbringanactionagainsttheotherintort,hadnobearingonthatcase,which,ashere,involvedtheinterpretationofacontractofinsurance. Elam, 1987WL13829at*2.Thecourtwentontostatethat spousalexclusionprovisionsinaliabilitypolicyarenotviolativeofpublicpolicy. Id. 󛀜(citing Dresslerv.StateFarmMut.ϜAuto.Ins.Co. ,376S.W.2d700(Tenn.App.1963)).̛  Elam isanalogoustothecaseathand.Inourjudgment,thedecisionsin Broadwell and Davis ,whichMrs.SettersasksϜthatweextendtoinvalidatethefamilymemberexclusionhere,donothavethe elasticitysuggestedbyher.Wedonotread Broadwell torequireinvalidationofthisexclusionaryprovisiononpublicpolicygrounds.Furthermore,casesdecidedsubsequentto Broadwell haveupheldsimilarfamilymemberexclusions,withoutexpressinganyreservationsbasedonpublicpolicygrounds.See,e.g., StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.v.Dotson ,C/ANo.02A019407CV00166,1995WL548784(Tenn.App.,W.S.,filedSeptember18,1995,Highers,J.)and AllstateIns.Co.V.Summers ,C/ANo.01A019407CV00361,1994WL719839͜(Tenn.App.,M.S.,filedDecember30,1994,Lewis,J.).Thecourtin Dotson affirmativelystatedthat exclusionaryprovisionsinautomobileinsurancepoliciesarenotinconsistentwiththepublicpolicyofthisstate. Dotson ,1995WL548784at*3.̛  Aninsurancepolicymustbeconstruedinareasonable,logicalmanner,soastoeffectuatetheintentionoftheparties. J.C.Penney ,1991WL3311at*2.Partiestoaninsurancecontractarefreetocontractastheyseefitsolongastheyremainwithintheboundsoflaw,includingpublicpolicy. Elam, 1987WL 13829at*2.Giventheseconsiderations,andtheϜauthorityinthisstateholdingthatfamilymemberexclusionsinliabilitypoliciesareconsistentwiththepublicpolicyofTennessee,weholdthattheexclusionatissueinthiscaseisnotcontrarytopublicpolicy.@ IV̛  Mrs.SetterssecondissueraisesthequestionofwhetherthetermsofthepolicycreatesuchanambiguityastoϜrequireastrictconstructioninherfavor.WedonotfindanyϜambiguityintherelevantprovisionsofthepolicy.̛  Itistruethatambiguousprovisionsinaninsurancepolicyaretobeconstruedagainsttheinsurer;however,intheabsenceofanyambiguity,8 8 itisthedutyoftheCourt...totaketheordinarymeaningofthewordsused,favoringneitherpartyintheirconstruction...Thecourtscannotcreateanambiguitywherenoneexists. OmahaProperty&CasualtyIns.Co. ,866S.W.2dat541(quoting Winecoffv.NationwideMut.Ins.Co. ,444S.W.2d84,87Ϝ(Tenn.1969)and InreClementsEstate ,414S.W.2d644,646Ϝ(Tenn.1967)).Inaddition,asstatedbythiscourt, 8 [s]olongasanexclusionaryclausemerelylimitscoverageanddoesnottotallyemasculateapreviouslystatedcoverage,thisCourtdoesnotconceiveaclearlywordedexclusiontoberepugnanttoapreviousgeneralstatementofcoverage. BeefNBird ,803S.W.2dat237.Thatisthesituationnowbeforeus.Thepolicycontainsastatementofcoverage,followedbyaprovisionrelievingPermanentGeneraloftheobligationtodefendorsettleclaimsthatarenotcovered.Itlaterenumeratescertainexclusions,orspecificcircumstancesunderwhichthepolicysliabilitycoveragedoesnotapply.Wedonotfindthesevariousprovisions,whenreadtogether,tobeambiguous.Thereiscoverageexceptwhenthatcoverageisexpresslyexcluded.̛  Wearewithoutauthorityto rewritepoliciesofinsurancetoprovidecoveragewherenocoveragewasintended. Spearsv.CommercialIns.Co.OfNewark,N.J. ,866S.W.2d544,548(Tenn.App.1993).Sincewefindnoambiguityintherelevantlanguageofthepolicyhere,weholdthatMrs.Setterssecondissueisalsowithoutmerit.̛  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealareassessedtotheappellantandhersurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforcollectionofcostsassessedthere,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.       _________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.