WPCk sJ4ȃG./4`95S̱Aݟ)xyGչ0 Hު ӗ{T}8A&8.&'|zʰ&}T;mL2x1iH]$ 7VCnhI,}P,|%X/zE)aoʼn V+%<8SX5q"146'Dt bxf|fIߩ5iKVy安a?rԞ0 cYp=[j-VGϰIlRYܱ%|gԡUğ IJMź?oD :MІrA$un"[#Qe!&ԭnFd |:2Z h&nBD#Fa*]h1 :oo˜es9z" Ri<b %\UNb 0U!N8%  z[L-^ yw 0DYN-4 E. m0#GVb^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0ffff BQQ 0n D5 D-G 0Ktt AS 0 0D| A(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  R$      3  z0  _ԀApparently,MaxandMaxineweretheonlytwodogsinvolvedintheattackonMattieLeeDrake.Thisfact  isimportanttonoteinsofarasthesetwodogswereacquiredbyHostetlerafterthe baddogexclusionwasaddedto x hispolicy.  R$      4  z0  _ԀContrarytotheargumentspresentedbyTFMregardingreasonableforeseeability,webelievethattheremust  beashowingthatHostetlerintendedfortheattacktooccur.TheEvanscaseclearlystatesthattheindividualmust x  intendtheact.Wedonotbelievethattheforeseeabilityoftheactisdispositive.  R$      6  z0  _ԀTFMhasarguedthatHostetleristoblamebecausehedidnotinformTFMthathehadacquiredadditional  dogsandhecontinuedtopayhispremiums.Whateverthegoaloftheseargumentsmaybe,theyareirrelevanttoour x considerationofwhetherthelanguageemployedintheexclusionisambiguous.Webelievethattheproperfocusison @ TFMsknowledgeasopposedtoHostetler.TFMsfailuretoamendthelanguageintheexclusioncannotberemedied X bypointingthefingerattheinsured. 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.wpt B R$      7  z0  _ԀWehaveconsideredalloftheissueraisedbyTFMintheirbriefandareoftheopinionthattheyarewithout  7 meritastheyrelatetothedispositiveissuesinthiscase.}{) (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 R$      5  z0  _ԀTherecordindicatesthattheexclusionwasamendedaftertheattacktoinclude anydogsorcanines. # R$      2  z0  _ԀThepartieshavereferredtothisas thedogexclusion.Forthesakeofsimplicity,weshallrefertothe  exclusioninthesamemanner.gI(:i+003|xUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PCL 60 L R$      1  z0  _Wehavestyledthiscaseasitappearedinthetrialcourt;however,_Hostetler_Ԁand_Fincher_Ԁarenotpartiestothis  appeal.- -(|G2$ !.8d d 8         0  h@ d(|3$ !.8d d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8d d8     _  8}XXdd 8  @ U`INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#U` #Ԉ    FEBRUARY2000Session 8 X}X #XX}#TENNESSEEFARMERSMUTUALINSURANCECOMPANYv.ROGER . E._HOSTETLER_,JOANN_FINCHER_ԀANDJAMESDURHAMDRAKEX}X   #  1        < @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty  4 @@No.4819;TheHonorableJosephH.Walker,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199900368_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly28,2000   AV) ` dE<X` A Y     X@ XXX}ThisappealarisesfromadeclaratoryjudgmentactionfiledintheLauderdaleCountyCircuitCourt R byTennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCompany.Thecomplaintsoughtadeclarationthat > TennesseeFarmerswasnotobligatedtodefendorindemnifyitsinsuredsagainstawrongfuldeath *z lawsuitfiledbyJamesDrake,executoroftheestateofMattieLeeDrake.Afterbothsidesfiled f motionsforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtruledthatcoveragedidnotexistunderthePersonal R LiabilityInsurancePolicyandenteredsummaryjudgmentinfavorofTennesseeFarmersMutual > InsuranceCompany.#X}X XX@##XX}#X}X *  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversedand  Remanded     #X}#X}X.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFarmer,J.,andLillard,J., n joined. X RobertB._Vandiver_,Jr.,Jackson,forAppellantDrake , | CharlesL.Trotter,Jr.,Huntingdon,forAppellee "P!   OPINION #XX} #X}X #$# #XX}m #X}X  X@ XXX}Inthisdeclaratoryjudgmentaction,JamesD.DrakeappealsfromtheorderoftheLauderdaleCounty % % CircuitCourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofTennesseeFarmersMutualInsurance.Forthe &!& reasonsstatedherein,wereversethedecisionofthetrialcourt. '"'    D*%* ЇFactsandProceduralHistory       OnMarch19,1996,MattieLeeDrakewasattackedandkilledbytworottweilerdogs  allegedlyownedbyRoger_Hostetler_.OnMay3,1996,JamesDrake,asAdministratorofhis t mothersestate,filedacomplaintagainst_Hostetler_Ԁassertingclaimsforwrongfuldeath. `   AtthetimeoftheattackwhichledtoMrs.Drakesdeath,_Hostetler_Ԁwasinsuredundera 8  personalliabilityinsurancepolicyissuedbyTennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCompany $ t ( TennesseeFarmersor _TFM_).ThispolicywasfirstissuedonJanuary19,1989.Atthetime  ` ofitsissuance,thepolicycontainedan intentionalactsexclusionwhichstated:  L     ` UnderPersonalLiabilityCoverageandMedicalPaymentstoOthers $     ` Coverage,wedonotcover:      ` ...      ` 5.Bodilyinjuryorpropertydamageexpectedorintendedbyaninsured      ` person.   OnNovember7,1989,thefollowingendorsementwasplacedontheinsurancepolicy: \    ` ThePersonalLiabilityandMedicalPaymentstoOthersCoverage 4    ` providedbythispolicyshallnotprovidecoveragearisingfromor  p    ` inconnectionwiththedogownedbyorinthecare,custodyor  \    ` controlofanyinsuredperson.  #  2       H (emphasisadded).Bothoftheaboveexclusionswerepartofthepolicyandinfullforceatthetime   oftheattack.     BurnieNorman,anindependentagentforTennesseeFarmers,testifiedtothecircumstances  whichledtothedogexclusionbeingplacedon_Hostetler_spolicy.Inessence,thedogexclusionwas  placedonthepolicyafterMr.Norman,inoraroundNovemberof1989,hadoccasiontoview l _Hostetler_sdoganddeterminethatitmight,infact,beadangerousanimal.Atthattime,_Hostetler_ X  ownedonlyonedog,arottweilernamedDamien.However,subsequenttotheexclusionbeing D! placedonthepolicy,_Hostetler_ԀacquiredtwoadditionalrottweilerdogsnamedMaxandMaxine.   #  3       0"    OnJuly15,1996TennesseeFarmersfiledacomplaintfordeclaratoryjudgmentallegingthat $X" nocoverageexistedunderthepolicyforthedogsthatattackedandkilledMattieLeeDrake._TFM_ $D # soughtadeclarationthatitwasnotobligatedtodefend_Hostetler_Ԁagainstthetortactionfiledby %0!$ JamesDrake,norwasitobligatedtopayanyjudgmentrenderedagainsthim._TFM_spositionwas  basedonboththe intentionalactsand baddogexclusionsto_Hostetler_spolicyofinsurance.  Thetrialcourtrejectedtheargumentthattheintentionalactsexclusionservedtoprecludecoverage  underthepolicy.Thecourtfoundthattheattackwasneitheranexpectednorintendedactonthe t partof_Hostetler_.However,thecourtfoundthatthebaddogexclusionwasapplicableandrendered ` summaryjudgmentinfavorof_TFM_Ԁonthatbasis.Thetrialcourtfoundthatitwastheintentofthe L  partiestoexcludefromcoverageanydogownedby_Hostetler_. 8    Thepresentappealarisesoutofthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorof_TFM_.  ` Theissuesforourconsiderationarewhetherthe baddogand/ortheintentionalactsexclusion  L  servestoprecludeinsurancecoverage.  8    LawandAnalysis       Sincethiscasecomesbeforeusonasummaryjudgmentdismissal,ourstandardofreview   iswellsettled.Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlywhenthemovingpartydemonstratesthat   therearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatheorsheisentitledtojudgmentasamatterof p law.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993).Wereviewthe \ summaryjudgmentmotionasaquestionoflawinwhichourinquiryisdenovowithouta H presumptionofcorrectness._Finister_Ԁv.HumboldtGeneralHosp.,Inc.,970S.W.2d435,437(Tenn. 4 1998);Robinsonv._Omer_,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997).Wemustviewtheevidenceandall  p reasonableinferencesinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty.Byrd,847S.W.2dat  \ 210-11.Ifboththefactsandconclusionstobedrawntherefrompermitareasonablepersontoreach H onlyoneconclusion,thensummaryjudgmentisappropriate.Robinson,952S.W.2dat426;_Bain_ 4 v.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).     Additionally,wearemindfuloftheprinciplesapplicabletoourreviewofinsurancepolicies.  Issuesrelatingtotheinterpretationofwrittencontractsinvolvelegalratherthanfactualissues.See  _Rapp_ԀConstr.Co.v.JayRealtyCo.,809S.W.2d490,491(Tenn.Ct.App.1991);Taylorv.  UniversalTireInc.,672S.W.2d775,777(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Accordingly,issuesrelatingtothe l scopeofcoverageandaninsurer'sdutytodefendlikewisepresentquestionsoflaw.SeePilev. X  Carpenter,99_S.W._Ԁ360,362(1907);Pennsylvania_Lumbermens_ԀMut.FireIns.Co.v.Holt,223 D! S.W.2d203,206(1949).When,asinthepresentcase,theonlyissuestoberesolvedarelegal,the 0"  scopeofourreviewiswellsettled. #l! Ѐ8  Insurancecontractslikeothercontractsshouldbeconstruedsoastogiveeffectto $D # theintentionandexpresslanguageoftheparties."_Blaylock_Ԁ&BrownConstruction, %0!$ Inc.v._AIU_ԀInsuranceCo.,796S.W.2d146,149(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Wordsin &"% aninsurancepolicyaregiventheircommonandordinarymeaning.Wherelanguage '#& inaninsurancepolicyissusceptibleofmorethanonereasonableinterpretation, (#' however,itisambiguous.Seee.g.,Mossv.GoldenRuleLifeInsuranceCo.,724 )$( S.W.2d367,368(Tenn.Ct.App.1986).Wheretheambiguouslanguagelimitsthe |*%) coverageofaninsurancepolicy,thatlanguagemustbeconstruedagainstthe h+&* insurancecompanyandinfavoroftheinsured.AllstateInsuranceCo.v.Watts,811  S.W.2d883,886(Tenn.1991).   _Tata_Ԁv._Nichols_,848S.W.2d649,650(Tenn.1993). t   I.The intentionalactsexclusion 8      Thepolicyofinsuranceissuedto_Hostetler_Ԁcontainedanexclusionwherebynocoverage  ` existsfor bodilyinjuryexpectedorintendedbyaninsuredperson.Thetrialcourtconcluded  L  thatthisexclusionwasnotapplicable.Weconcurwiththedecisionofthetrialcourt.  8      Inorderforthe intentionalactsexclusiontoapply,itmustbeestablishedthattheinsured   intendedtheactandalsointendedorexpectedthatinjurywouldresult.TennesseeFarmersMut.   Ins.Co.v.Evans,814S.W.2d49(Tenn.1991).Theseareseparateanddistinctinquiries.Id.   Therefore,thethresholdquestioniswhether_Hostetler_Ԁintendedforthedogstoattack(i.e,theact).  #  4      ׀   Wefindnothingintherecordwhichwouldsupporttheconclusionthat_Hostetler_Ԁintendedtheact. p Inthisregard,weagreewiththetrialcourtsstatementonthisissue: \ 8  Thecourtfindsthatthedogsattackingandkillingthevictimwasnotanexpectedor 4 intendedactbyaninsuredperson.Theuncontrovertedfactsshowthatthedogswere  p keptinapen,althoughapparentlytheydidescape.Thefactsestablishedthat  \ _Hostetler_Ԁtookseveralactionstokeepthedogsinsidethepen.Hisactionsmayhave H beennegligent,butnotintentionalinallowingthedogstoattackandkill.4   Sincethereisnobasisuponwhichtoconcludethat_Hostetler_ԀintendedforthedogstoattackMattie   LeeDrake,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionthattheintentionalactsexclusiondoesnotserveto  precludecoverage.    II. Baddogexclusion l     The baddogexclusionservestoprecludecoverageforanyinjuries arisingfromorin D! connectionwiththedogownedby,...,anyinsured.Thedisputeinregardtothisexclusionarises 0"  outofthelanguagefoundintheexclusionitself.Specifically,theexclusionrefersto thedogin #l! thesingular.Atthetimetheexclusionwasadded,_Hostetler_Ԁownedonlyonedog,Damien.There $X" canbelittledoubtthattheexclusionappliestoDamien.However,atthetimeoftheattack,_Hostetler_ $D # ownedthreedogs,Damien,Max,andMaxine.Once_Hostetler_Ԁacquiredtheadditionaldogs,the %0!$ questionbecomeswhethertheexclusionalsocoversthem. &"%  '#&   Ingrammaticalterms, thedogcannotsimultaneouslyapplytothreedogs.Clearly,_TFM_  shouldhaveamendedthelanguageintheexclusionifithadwishedtoavoidthepresentscenario.  #  5      ׀  Infact,duringaregularrenewalofthepolicy,David_Snell_,a_TFM_Ԁagent,wrote excludedogs󀄀keep  exclusiononpolicy.Hetestifiedastothecircumstancesofthisnotation,andheadmittedthathe t wasaware_Hostetler_Ԁownedmorethanonedog.Healsotestifiedthatthedocumentwhichcontained ` thisnotationbecamepartof_TFM_sofficialfile.Therefore,weareconvinced_TFM_Ԁkneworshould L  haveknownthat_Hostetler_Ԁownedmorethanonedog.Unfortunately,thelanguageoftheexclusion 8  wasnotamendedafter_Hostetler_Ԁacquiredtheadditionaldogs.X  #  6       $ t   _TFM_Ԁcontendsthereisnoambiguityinregardstothepresentissuebecausethe intentions  L  andexpresslanguageofthepartiesclearlyshowsthatallsubsequentlyacquireddogswerecovered  8  undertheexclusion.Wedonotbelievethatthisassertionissupportedbytherecord.Itisclearfrom $  thetestimonyofBurnieNorman,the_TFM_Ԁagentwhocausedtheexclusiontobeplacedonthe   policy,that_Hostetler_Ԁonlyownedonedogatthetimetheexclusionwasadded.Itisalsoclearfrom   thetestimonythatthisonedogservedastheimpetusfortheexclusionbeingadded.Throughthe   testimonyofDavid_Snell_,another_TFM_Ԁagent,weknowthat_TFM_Ԁkneworshouldhaveknowthat   _Hostetler_Ԁownedmorethanonedog.WhateverintentTennesseeFarmershadinregardto_Hostetler_s p dogs,thelanguagecontainedintheexclusionisfarfromclear. \   Acontractisambiguousonlyifitisofuncertainmeaningandmayfairlybeunderstoodin 4 morewaysthanone.Rogersv.FirstTennesseeBankNat._Ass'n._,738S.W.2d635(Tenn.Ct.App.  p 1987).Regardlessoftheconvictionwithwhich_TFM_Ԁadvancesitsposition,reasonablemindscould  \ disagreeoverthepresentissue.Therecanbelittledebatethat,asageneralrule, thedogwillbe H understoodtorefertoonlyonedog.Therefore,evenif_TFM_sassertionthattheexclusionapplies 4 toalldogscouldbeaccepted,itisveryclearthatthealternativepositionisjustaseasilyacceptable.   Assuch,wefindourselvesfacinganambiguityinapolicyofinsurance.Therulesforsucha   scenarioarewellsettledandprovidetheresolutionofthepresentcase.Wheretheambiguous  languagelimitsthecoverageofaninsurancepolicy,asitdoesinthepresentcase,thatlanguagemust  beconstruedagainsttheinsurancecompanyandinfavoroftheinsured.See_Tata_,848S.W.2dat  650(citingAllstateInsuranceCo.v.Watts,811S.W.2d883,886(Tenn.1991);_Purdy_Ԁv.Tenn. l FarmersMut.Ins.Co.,586S.W.2d128,130(Tenn.Ct.App.1979).Accordingly,wefindthatthe X   baddogexclusiondoesnotapplytothedogsacquiredaftertheexclusionwasplacedonthe D! policy.   #  7      ׀ 0"  Ї  Inconclusion,weagreewiththetrialcourtthattheintentionalactsexclusionisnot  applicableinthepresentcase.However,wefindthatthe baddogexclusiondoesnotapplytoMax  andMaxine,thedogsacquiredaftertheexclusionwasadded.Assuch,totheextentthatthosedogs  wereinvolvedintheattackonMattieLeeDrake,TennesseeFarmersmustperformitsobligations t under_Hostetler_spolicyofinsurance. `   Conclusion 8      Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavor  ` ofTennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCompanyisreversed.Weremandthecasewithdirections  L  toentersummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheappellant,JamesD.Drake,consistentwiththisopinion.  8  Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellee,TennesseeFarmers,forwhichexecutionmayissueif $  necessary.#X}X XX@ ##XX} #X}X      `     h     ___________________________________ j    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE