WPC@ 8 } įT@]&Aɨ\:q 0v+c9̐ m*v h`q)tr.[p7z)7Zi9&ս?Q$ "Rσf;dK224tD|oKNSo4öHȏq)xmehp6F?Ijhچ{qS=w@==U:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AO*?y?y? 0D?@ D/@ B@V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dRC&$(G.2$ FT!   UXX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONSEYMOUR(3$ F!  U SX5XXXS2XSX5   Ad FILEDS S2   March11,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.ST S AppellateCourt  Clerk <09Z .Courier New RegularGGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular EEEӀ WX5XXXW2XWX5   Ad FILEDW W2   March10,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.WT W AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial RegularMC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!     7JDXXdXXd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XTXJDXXXrPR<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rrVR<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` r@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLESUZANNESHERER,etal.@*@@*)  KNOXCOUNTY   x    `     h   )  03A019805CV00168 @   PlaintiffsAppellees@*) h    @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.HAROLDJ.WIMBERLY, `  @*)  JUDGE (  @*)RAYALLENLINGINFELTER,etal.@*)   Ѐ@*)       DefendantsAppellants@*)  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED H  ARTHURG.SEYMOUR,JR.,OFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTUNITEDSERVICESAUTOMOBILEASSOCIATIONJESSD.CAMPBELLOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEES@*@*   `    OPINION !8    `     h      p   QX-XXTXJDԢGoddard,P.J. % $    ` ThisisanappealfromthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtsustainingamotionforsummaryjudgmentinfavorofSuzanneϢShererandCharlesSherer,whoappearasthenaturalguardiansofϜTealSherer.TheTrialCourtsactiondeniedUnitedServicesAutomobileAssociation(USAA),theSherers𛀜underinsuredmotoristcarrier,subrogationrightsagainstanyrecoverybytheSherersinasuitagainstGeneralMotors.WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourt.   ` Thefactspertinenttothedeterminationofthisappealareundisputed.Therefore,ourdutyistoascertainthestateofthelawandapplyittothefactsofthiscase. <;1> Ї   STANDARDOFREVIEW        ` Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourt'sreviewofatrialcourt'sactiononamotionforsummaryjudgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionoflaw,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothetrialcourt'sjudgment.OurtaskisconfinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhethertherequirementsofRule56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurehavebeenmet.Cowdenv.Sovran ( Bank/Cent.S.,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).Rule56.03of 4 theTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureprovidesthatsummaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhere:(1)thereisnogenuineissuewithregardtothematerialfactsrelevanttotheclaimordefensecontainedinthemotion,Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,   210(Tenn.1993);and(2)themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasmatteroflawontheundisputedfacts.Andersonv. <$  StandardRegisterCo.,857S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993).The %" movingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatitsmotionsatisfiestheserequirements.Downenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523, @)& 524(Tenn.1991).   ` Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummaryjudgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinthenonmovingparty'sfavor.Byrd,847S.W.2dat210-11. 4+4 Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhenboththefacts andtheconclusionstobedrawnfromthefactspermita L8.8 reasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.Byrd,847S.W.2d `  at21011.   FACTS       ` OnSeptember4,1995,TealSherer,daughterofCharlesandSuzanneSherer,sustainedinjuriesinaonecaraccidentwhileridingasapassengerina1987ChevroletautomobiledrivenbyRayLinginfelter.Asaresultoftheaccident,Tealsustainedseriousinjurieswhichincludedalossofsensationbelowthewaist.OnMarch27,1996,theSherersenteredintoasettlementagreementwithMr.Linginfelterandhisinsurancecarrier.Inthissettlementagreement,Tealreceived$300,000inacompromisesettlement,ofwhich$175,000waspaiddirectlytotheSherersand$125,000contributedtowardsastructuredsettlement.All$300,000wastobepaidbyMr.Linginfeltersinsurancecarrier.   `    ` Atthetimeofthisaccident,Mr.ShererhadaprimaryinsurancepolicyandanumbrellainsurancepolicywithUSAA,bothofwhichprovideduninsuredmotoristcoverageforTeal.Mr. :04 ТSherersprimarypolicyincludeduninsuredmotoristcoverageof$300,000perpersonandtheumbrellapolicyincreasedcoverageto$1,000,000.InthesettlementofTealsclaim,USAApaidtheSherers$650,000,$300,000undertheprimarypolicy,and$350,000undertheumbrellapolicy.USAAhadpreviouslypaidmedicalbenefitsof$50,000underthemedicalpaymentcoverageoftheprimarypolicy.Insum,theSherersreceived$1,000,000fromthesettlement,eitherinlumpsumorinpaymentsfromastructuredsettlement.   ` AftersettlingtheclaimagainstMr.Linginfelter,theϢSherersbroughtaproductliabilityactionagainstGeneralMotors,themanufacturerofthevehicleinwhichTealwasridingatthetimeoftheaccident.Thiscomplaint,filedAugust29,1996,allegedthattheuseofalaprestraint,insteadofalapandshoulderbeltcombination,byGeneralMotorsinthe1987ChevroletCapriceresultedinadditionalinjuriestoTeal.OnNovember17,1997,theSherersfiledaComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgmentwhereintheyallegedthatUSAAhadnosubrogationrightsagainstanyrecoveryastoGeneralMotors,becauseGeneralMotorswasliableforadditionalinjuriestoTealaboveandbeyondthenegligenceofMr.Linginfelter.   ` TheSherersfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentwhichwasheardbytheTrialCourtonJanuary29andFebruary6,1998.TheTrialCourtagreedthatUSAAhadnosubrogationrightsarisingfromthepolicyagainstanyrecoverybytheSherers  :04 againstGeneralMotorsCorporationandgrantedtheSherersMotionforSummaryJudgment.Accordingly,judgmentwasenteredonFebruary25,1998.USAAfiledNoticeofAppealonMarch12,1998.   DISCUSSION  `  Q     ` Asalreadynoted,USAAclaimssubrogationrightstoanyrecoveryarisingfromtheSherersproductliabilityclaimagainstGeneralMotorsbecauseofadditionalinjuriestoTealasaresultofGeneralMotorsnegligence.̀   ` TennesseeCodeAnnotated56-7-1202(a)definesan uninsuredmotorvehicleas:Forthepurposeofthiscoverage,"uninsuredmotorvehicle"meansamotorvehiclewhoseownership,maintenance,orusehasresultedinthebodilyinjury,death,ordamagetopropertyofaninsured,andforwhichthesumofthelimitsofliabilityavailabletotheinsuredunderallvalidandcollectibleinsurancepolicies,bonds,andsecuritiesapplicabletothebodilyinjury,death,ordamagetopropertyislessthantheapplicablelimitsofuninsuredmotoristcoverageprovidedtotheinsuredunderthepolicyagainstwhichtheclaimismade.%3   ` Theprovisionsoftheprimarypolicyinquestionprovideinpertinentpartasfollows:   OURRIGHTTORECOVERPAYMENT  x3*- 4"A. ` Ifwemakeapaymentunderthispolicyandthe @5+/ persontoorforwhompaymentwasmadehasarighttorecoverdamagesfromanother,weshallbesubrogatedtothatright.Thatpersonshalldowhateverisnecessarytoenableustoexerciseourrightsanddonothingafterlosstoprejudicethem.... 904 ЇB.Ifwemakepaymentsunderthispolicyandthepersontoorforwhompaymentismaderecoversdamagesfromanother,thatpersonshallholdintrustforustheproceedsoftherecoveryandreimburseustotheextentofourpayment."#""ӀFurthermore,theumbrellapolicyincludedthefollowingprovisionunder UninsuredMotoristCoverage:ThecoverageprovidedbythisendorsementissubjecttoallprovisionsoftheUninsuredMotoristCoverageprovidedbythetheprimaryAutomobileLiabilityInsurancePolicy,exceptasmodifiedbythisendorsement.... ` Withrespecttodamagescausedbyanuninsuredmotorvehicletowhichabodilyinjuryliabilitybondorpolicyappliesatthetimeoftheaccident,thelimitofliabilityunderthisendorsementshallbereducedbyallsumspaidorpayable: `  byoronbehalfofpersonsororganizationswhomaybelegallyresponsible; `  underPartAoftheprimarypolicy;or `  undertheliabilitycoverageofthispolicy. ` However,innocasewillthelimitofliabilitybereducedifsuchwouldduplicateareductionundertheUninsuredMotoristCoverageortheprimarypolicy. ` Innoeventshallapersonbeentitledtoreceiveduplicatepaymentsforthesamedamages.% `  %%   ` USAAreliesheavilyonErwinv.Rose,anunpublished P(! opinionofthisCourt,filedinNashvilleonApril15,1998.InErwin,theplaintiffwaskilledbyaMauryCountyDeputywholost ,"% controlofhiscarwhileinpursuitofanotherdriver.Theplaintiffsparentsfiledsuitagainstboththefleeingdriverandthedeputy.TheTrialCourtbifurcatedthetwoactions,tryingthecaseagainstthedeputyfirst.TheTrialCourtfoundtheplaintiffsdamagessurpassedonemilliondollars,butlimitedthecountysliabilityto$130,000underTennesseeCodeAnnotated2920403(2)(A). 09/3 Ї   ` TheTrialCourtandajurythenheardthecaseagainstMr.Lovell,thefleeingdriver.Thejuryreturnedaverdictfor$1,000,000findingMr.Lovell84%atfaultandDeputyRose16%atfault.Mr.Lovellhada$25,000liabilitypolicy,whiletheplaintiffshada$100,000uninsuredmotoristcoverage.TheTrialCourtdismissedtheclaimagainsttheuninsuredmotoristcarrieruponitsmotionforsummaryjudgmentbasedupontheuninsuredmotoristpolicy.InaffirmingthedecisionoftheTrialCourt,JudgeCantrellheldthattheadoptionofcomparativefault didnotaffecttherightoftheinsurancecompanytoreduceitscoveragebythebenefitstheinsuredreceivesfromwhateversource.Inarrivingatthisconclusion,JudgeCantrellrelieduponcasesdecidedbeforetheadoptionofourcomparativefaultsystem.   ` WemustrespectfullydisagreewithJudgeCantrellandtheholdingofErwinv.Rose.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt `'  clearlyannouncedthedemiseofjointandseveralliabilityinTennesseeinMcIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992):  +!$ todaysholdingrendersthedoctrineofjointandseveralliabilityobsolete....Havingthusadopted...[comparative]fault,itwouldbeinconsistenttosimultaneouslyretainarule,jointandseveralliability,whichmayfortuitouslyimposeadegreeofliabilitythatisoutofallproportiontofault. ` Further,becauseaparticulardefendantwillhenceforthbeliableonlyforthepercentageofaplaintiffsdamagesoccasionedbythatdefendantsnegligence,situationswhereadefendanthaspaidmorethanhis shareofajudgmentwillnolongerarise....S1s1e1McIntyre,833S.W.2dat58. 09/3 Ї   ` InCoxv.NewayLoveDistributors,Inc.,anunreported `  opinionofthisCourt,filedinKnoxvilleonJanuary11,1996,weappliedtheprinciplessetforthinMcIntyretouninsured   motoristcoveragewithmultipletortfeasors.InCox,the  uninsuredmotoristprovidersoughtcreditarisingfromsubrogationrightsforallsumsreceivedfortheinjuriesoftheinsured.InCox,weheldthat,iftheuninsuredmotoristcarrier @  isrequiredtomakeanypaymentstotheplaintiff,subrogationwillbelimitedtotheplaintiffsrightsagainsttheuninsuredmotorist.̛̜   ` ThisholdingissupportedbytheprovisionsofT.C.A.5671204(a)whichprovides:Ӏ5671204.PaymentbyinsurerSubrogation(a)Intheeventofpaymenttoanypersonunderthecoveragerequiredbythispart,andsubjecttothetermsandconditionsofsuchcoverage,theinsurermakingsuchpaymentshall,totheextentthereof,besubrogatedtoalloftherightsofthepersontowhomsuchpaymenthasbeenmade,andshallbeentitledtotheproceedsofanysettlementorjudgmentresultingfromtheexerciseofanyrightsofrecoveryofsuchpersonagainstanypersonororganizationlegallyresponsibleforthebodilyinjuryorpropertydamageforwhichsuchpaymentismade,includingtheproceeds ,"% recoverablefromtheassetsofaninsolventinsurer.(emphasisadded).7}77Ӝ   ` Thesubrogationrightsoftheinsurerarelimitedtotheinjuriesforwhichtheinsurerhadmadepayment.Afterthedeathofjointandseveralliability,eachdefendantisresponsibleonlyforliabilityarisingfromthatdefendantsownnegligentacts.Forthisreason,paymentsmadebyadefendantto >9/3 aplaintiffcompensatestheplaintifffortheinjuriesincurredasaresultofthat,andonlythat,defendantsnegligence.   ` Accordingly,inthecaseathand,afternegotiatingandarrivingatasettlement,USAAmadepaymentstocompensatetheSherersfortheinjuriessustainedtoTealarisingfromthenegligenceoftheunderinsuredmotorist,Mr.Linginfelter.InnowaywerethesepaymentscompensationfortheenhancementofϜTealsinjuriesarisingfromGeneralMotorsdesignofthepassengerrestraintsystem.WeagreewiththeTrialJudgewhostated:ItisthisCourtsopinionthatthesettlementbyGeneralMotorsis,whileforthesameinjury,notforthesameportionofthatinjuryforwhichpaymentwasmadeorsettlementwasmadebyUSAAonbehalfofthedriverofthevehicle;thattheseareseparate,eventhoughresultinginoneinjury,andthatthesubrogationwouldnotbeforthisportionoftheinjuryattributabletoGeneralMotors.>>>Ӏ   `  p&    ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstUSAA.X XXQXM   `     h   _______________________________ /p&)    `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜  2@), ЛCONCUR:̜________________________________񀀀(NotParticipating)__񀀀  DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.#QXMXXX mA#TX XXQXM P  #QXMXXTX C#