WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 @ 0lH 0D 0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` B U, 0dU,U>U6B)"DCK AM D3U*"8 0@Zv~v AO: 0D D/D BsHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ D V D  D D D   Ӏ~| | p 3|x ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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) d<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G'dxd<  9p`(Arial  !#d#%  ++   YYY FILED+X April15,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.+AppellateCourtClerk ("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &$$Xd&#$$Xd#%    P &\RA'\ћ73XXdd7ќL),(;+'h|`  `LߛINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̛  VANLINERINSURANCECOMPANY,)C/ANO.03A019511CH00405      )ANDERSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT  PlaintiffAppellee,)       )      )      )      )      )HONORABLEWILLIAME.LANTRIP,v.      )CHANCELLOR      )      )      )      )      )JANICEJESSING,   )      )  DefendantAppellant.)AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED̛̜PHILIPR.CRYE,JR.ofRIDENOUR,RIDENOUR&FOX,Clinton,forAppellant.J.GREGORYOCONNORandCHRISTOPHERD.HEAGERTYofCARPENTER&OCONNOR,Knoxville,forAppellee.  OPINION̛          Susano,J.ӛ  Thiscaseinvolvesanagreementofindemnification.ItaroseoutoftheaftermathofamotorvehicleaccidentbetweentheappellantJaniceJessing(Jessing)andDanielBrown(Brown).BrownandhisemployerwereinsuredunderaliabilityinsurancepolicyissuedbytheappelleeVanlinerInsuranceCompanyϜ(Vanliner).Intheinstantaction,VanlinersoughtindemnificationfromJessingforpaymentsmadebyitinsatisfactionofsubrogationclaimsassertedagainstVanlinerbyStateFarmInsuranceCompany(StateFarm)andCottonStatesInsuranceCompany(CottonStates).Bothoftheseinsurershadmadepaymentstoorfortheirinsured,theappellantJessing,underGeorgiasnofaultinsurancelaw.InsupportofitssuitagainstJessing,Vanlinerrelieduponlanguageinadocumententitled IndemnifyingReleasesignedbyJessingwhenshesettledhertortactionagainstBrown,Vanliner,andothers.VanlinerarguedthatJessinghadagreedtoindemnifyitforpaymentsitultimatelyhadtomaketosettlethesubrogationclaimsassertedbyStateFarmandCottonStatesasaresultoftheaccident.ThetrialcourtgrantedVanlinersummaryjudgment,findingtheindemnificationagreementvalid,enforceable,andapplicabletothepaymentsmadebyVanliner.Jessingappeals,raisingtheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttoVanliner.Findingnoerrorinthetrialcourtsjudgment,weaffirm.  ӜI    OnApril4,1989,JessingandBrownwereinvolvedinaϜmotorvehicleaccidentinCherokeeCounty,Georgia.Asaresultoftheaccident,Jessingsustainedseriousinjuries.Asaconsequenceofthoseinjuries,JessingmadenofaultclaimsagainstStateFarmandCottonStates.CottonStatespaid$20,000,andStateFarmpaid$5,000,insatisfactionofherclaims.  JessingthereafterfiledanegligencesuitagainstBrown,hisemployer,CookMovingSystems,UnitedVanLines,Inc.,andVanliner,intheStateofGeorgia.ThelitigationwassubsequentlyconcludedwhenVanlinerpaidJessing$250,000infullϜsettlementofhernegligenceaction.Thedocumentmemorializingthesettlement,signedbyJessing,wasentitled IndemnifyingRelease.Thelanguageinthedocumentpertinenttothisappealprovidesasfollows:8 8 I[Jessing]herebyexpresslystipulateandagreeinconsiderationoftheaforesaidpayment,toindemnifyandholdforeverharmlessDANIELJ.BROWN,COOKMOVINGSYSTEMS,INC.,VANLINERINSURANCECOMPANYandUNITEDVANLINES,INC.againstlossfromanyfurtherclaims,demandsoractionsthatmayhereafteratanytimebemadeorbroughtagainstthesaidpartiesbySTATEFARMINSURANCECOMPANYorCOTTONSTATESINSURANCECOMPANYoranyoftheirsubsidiaries,affiliates,successorsorassignswhoclaimtohaveasubrogationinterestonaccountoftheinjuriessustainedinconsequenceoftheaforesaidaccident.The IndemnifyingReleaseisdatedSeptember16,1991.  InOctober,1991,CottonStatesfiledsuitagainstVanliner,claimingasubrogationinterestasaresultofpaymentsmadepursuanttoJessingsnofaultclaim.StateFarmalsofiledsuitagainstVanlinerclaiming$5,000asasubrogationinterestbyvirtueofitsnofaultpayments.Shortlythereafter,VanlinersettledthesuitsbypayingCottonStates$20,000andStateFarm$5,000.VanlinerthensuedJessing,seekingindemnificationofthe$25,000paidinsatisfactionofthesubrogationclaims,pursuanttotheabovequotedindemnificationlanguage.  II    Wereviewagrantofsummaryjudgmentunderawellestablishedstandard.Indecidingwhetheragrantofsummaryjudgmentisappropriate,wemustdetermine ifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Wetakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesfromthatevidenceinitsfavor,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence.See Byrdv.Hall, 847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993).If,afterapplyingthisstandard,wefindthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,wemustaffirmthegrantofsummaryjudgment.  Thematerialfactsareundisputedinthiscase,andareasoutlinedinsectionIabove.TheonlygenuineissueassertedinJessingsbriefasbeingoneof factis whethertheexistingsubrogationclaimsfallwithintheindemnifyingclause.Thisisnotanissueoffact,butratheralegalquestiontobedeterminedbyananalysisoftheundisputedfacts,includingthesettlementagreement.Thus,ourinquiryiswhetherVanlinerisentitledtoreliefasamatteroflaw.  III    ThepartiesareinagreementthatTennesseesdoctrineoflexlocicontractusmandatestheapplicationofthesubstantivelawofGeorgiainthiscase. OhioCas.Ins.Co.v.TravelersIndemnityCo., 493S.W.2d465(Tenn.1973).  Ouranalysisofthiscaseisguidedanddeterminedbythemostfundamentalprinciplesofcontractlaw.Asalways,theϜtaskistodeterminethetrueintentofthecontractingparties,andthecentralgoalistoeffectuatethatintent. Carsellov.Touchton, 204S.E.2d589,59192(Ga.1974), Petersonv.FirstClaytonBank&TrustCo., 447S.E.2d63,6566(Ga.App.1994).  InGeorgia,thisapproachisnotonlymandatedbythecommonlaw,id.,butalsobylegislativeenactment:̛̜8 8 Thecardinalruleofconstructionistoascertaintheintentionoftheparties.Ifthatintentionisclearanditcontravenesnoruleoflawandsufficientwordsareusedtoarriveattheintention,itshallbeenforcedirrespectiveofalltechnicalorarbitraryrulesofconstruction.O.C.G.A.1323.  Inascertainingtheintentoftheparties,thefirstϜsourcetowhichthecourtsresortisthelanguageofthecontractitself.Georgiacaselawclearlydemonstratesthegeneralrulethatifacontractslanguageisunambiguous,thecourtwillnotlookbeyondthatlanguage:̛̜8 8 Wherethetermsofacontractareplainandunambiguous,noconstructionisrequiredorevenpermitted. Jonesv.Barnes, 170Ga.App.762,765,318S.E.2d164(1984).Theexistenceornonexistenceofambiguityinacontractisaquestionoflawforthecourt. Fosheev.Harris, 170Ga.App.394,395,317S.E.2d548(1984).̛̜ Heymanv.FinancialPropertiesDevelopers,Inc., 332S.E.2d893,895(Ga.App.1985);seealso HartleySelveyv.Hartley, 410S.E.2d118,11920(Ga.1991); Reedv.CrownCtr.Mgmt.Co., 326S.E.2d825,826(Ga.App.1985)( Noconstructionofanagreementisrequiredorevenpermittedwhenthelanguageemployedbythepartiesisplain,unambiguous,andcapableofonlyonereasonableconstruction.).  Keepingthesegeneralprinciplesinmind,weturntothelanguageofthe IndemnifyingReleasesignedbyJessingandrelieduponbyVanliner.Wefindtheimportofthislanguagecrystalclear.IfStateFarmorCottonStatespursuedasubrogationclaimagainstVanlinerforpaymentsmadeonaccountofinjuriessustainedbyJessingintheaccident,JessingagreedtoindemnifyVanlinerforthepaymentofthoseclaims,inconsiderationofthe$250,000receivedfromVanlinerinsettlementofhernegligenceclaim.That,ofcourse,ispreciselywhathappenedStateFarmandCottonStateseachfiledalawsuitseekingpaymentofitssubrogationinterestforthepaymentsmadebyitinsatisfactionofJessingsnofaultinsuranceclaim.Thatthetwoinsurancecompanieswerespecificallynamedintheagreement,totheexclusionofallothers,leadstotheconclusionthatVanlinerwaswellawareofthepossiblesubrogationclaimsbeforeitsettledJessingsnegligencelawsuit.Infact,therecordcontainsaletterfromCottonStatestoarepresentativeofVanliner,datedFebruary22,1991,whichmakesthisconclusioninescapable:̛̜8 8 ThisisafollowuptomyconversationwithyouonFebruary21,1991,regardingthestatusof[Jessings]claim.Youhaveadvisedthattheclaimisstillinlitigation...Youfurtheradvisedthatyouwillprotectourinterestwhichisintheamountof$20.000.00.̛̜Wefindthelanguageofthe IndemnifyingAgreementtobewithoutambiguity,andfairlydraftedtoaddresstheexactcontingencywhicheventuallydidoccurthefilingofsubrogationclaimsbyStateFarmandCottonStatesagainstVanliner.ThepartiesintendedtoprovideamechanismindemnificationthatwouldassureVanlinerthatitwouldpaynothingbeyondits$250,000paymenttoJessingasaresultofherinjuries.  Jessingargues,however,thattoenforcethe IndemnifyingReleasesignedbyherwouldbeinviolationoftheprinciple,wellrecognizedinGeorgia,that8 8 contractualindemnitiesdonotextendtolossescausedbyanindemniteesownnegligenceunlessthecontractexpresslystatesthatthenegligenceoftheindemniteeiscovered.̛̜ AllstateIns.Co.v.CityofAtlanta, 415S.E.2d308,309(Ga.App.1992),quoting SouthernR.Co.v.UnionCampCorp., 353S.E.2d519(Ga.App.1987).Jessingreliesprimarilyuponthe Allstate decision,citingalsothecasesof SeaboardCoastLineR.Co.v.UnionCampCorp., 243S.E.2d631(Ga.App.Ϝ1978),and GeorgiaStateTelephoneCo.v.Scarboro, 251S.E.2d309(Ga.App.1978).  Wefindthesecasesdistinguishableandthusinapplicabletothecaseatbar.Ineachofthethreecases,thelanguageintheagreementonwhichtheindemniteereliedwasbroadandgeneral.In Allstate, theindemnitylanguagewasasfollows:̛̜8 8 theundersignedfurthercovenantsandagreestoindemnifyandholdharmlessthe͜[indemnitee],itsofficers,agents,servantsandemployees,fromanyandallclaims,damagesorcostswhichthe[indemnitee],itsofficers,servantsandemployees,maybecalledupontomakeasaresultoftheeventhereinbeforereferredto.̛̜ Allstate, 415S.E.2dat309.Theindemnitylanguageintheothercaseswasalsoquitebroadandallencompassing. SeaboardCoastϜLineR.Co., 243S.E.2dat63233(requiringindemnificationfor anyandallloss); GeorgiaStateTelephoneCo., 251S.E.2dat310(requiringindemnificationfor allclaimsandsuitsforinjuryordamagetoanypersonorpropertywhatsoever...).BecauseofthelackofspecificityintheagreementsandtheirfailuretoexpresslyaddressindemnificationforactsofϜnegligenceontheindemniteespart,thecourtsineachoftheabovecasesrefusedtofindtheindemnitorliableforsuchnegligentacts.  Aswehavealreadynoted,thereisnosuchfailureofspecificityhere.ThepartiesexpresslyagreedbytheircontractthatJessingwouldindemnifyVanlinerinthespecificeventhernofaultinsurerspursuedtheirsubrogationrightsformoneypreviouslypaidonhernofaultclaims.TotheextentthattheagreementcanbecharacterizedasonerequiringindemnityforthenegligentactsofBrown,Vanlinersinsured,wenotethatJessingcouldnothaveconceivablyunderstoodtheagreementtorequireindemnificationforanythingelse.HerinitialtortlawsuitwasϜfornegligence,andtheagreementatissuewastheonememorializingthesettlementofthenegligencesuit.Thus,anapplicationofthegeneralrulein Allstate tothiscasewouldvitiatetheclearintentofthepartiesandrenderineffectiveandsuperfluoustheentireindemnityportionoftheagreement.Thiswedeclinetodo.  Finally,JessingarguesthatthelanguageoftheϜ IndemnifyingReleaseshouldbeconstruedsoasnottoincludethesubrogationclaimsbyStateFarmandCottonStates,becausetheagreementrequiredindemnificationfor lossfromanyfurtherclaims,demandsoractionsthatmayhereafteratanytimebemadeorbrought...(emphasisadded).Jessingarguesthataproperinterpretationofthewords furtherand hereaftermeansthecontractcoveredonlythoseclaimsofwhichVanlinerwasnotawareϜatthetimeoftheagreement,andsinceVanlinerknewofthepossiblesubrogationinterestsofStateFarmandCottonStates,theyshouldnotbeincludedundertheagreement.Wefindthissemanticalargumenttobespeciousandentirelywithoutmerit.Itisclearthatthesubrogationinterestsknowntothepartiesbeforetheagreementwassignedwerethepreciseonescontemplatedbythatdocument.Aspreviouslyindicated,thepartiesintendedtoprovidethatVanlinersexposureforJessingsinjurieswouldbecappedat$250,000.Inordertodothis,thepartiesaddressedthepotentialsubrogationclaimsthateachofthepartiesknewwere outthere.  Fortheaforementionedreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Thiscaseisremandedforthecollectionassessedbelowpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedandassessedtotheappellantandhersurety.Ӏ__________________________̀CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:̜______________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.̛̜̜______________________________WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge