ÿWPC# …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0x 0Dx ¼ w@¼ 0Jü 0TF 0^š U:ø 2 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ U, 0dGU,«U >× BU*2B)\ D3…DC¸ AMû 0@Hÿˆ‡†–v~vÓš AOm!Ƽ! 0D‚" D/Æ" Bõ"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡;p‚ 3|xÃ(((2¬5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¯°D±²g³g´hµg¶v·Ó€Ã2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô`"Arial Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d'''''ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òApril€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€(ÔThere€appears€to€be€some€disparity€within€Tennessee€case€law€with€respect€to€whether€theÏexistence€or€nonexistence€of€prejudice€to€the€insurer€has€any€bearing€on€notice€provisions.€€It€is€well„established€that€"in€the€absence€of€notice€as€required€no€coverage€is€afforded€even€though...the€insurerÏhas€not€been€prejudiced€by€the€delay€in€notice."€€òòWilsonóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€709;€òòHartford€Accident€&€Indem.ÏCo.€V.€Creasyóó,€530€S.W.2d€778€(Tenn.€1975);€òòPhoenix€Cotton€Oil€Co.€v.€Royal€Indem.€Coóó,€140€Tenn.Ï438,€205€S.W.€128€(1918).€€However,€courts€have€found€the€existence€of€prejudice€to€an€insurer€to€beÏrelevant€in€several€cases,€including,€òòMcKimmóó,€790€S.W.2d€at€527;€òòBushóó,€866€S.W.2d€575,€577€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993);€andòò€Transamericaóó,€Shelby€Eq.€No.€23,€1987€WL€12043,€at€Ô€(XÔ*€Ô€(ôÔ2€(Tenn.€App.€June€10,€1987).€ÏFrom€these€cases€can€be€gleaned€the€following€proposition:€€When€it€is€clear€that€an€insured€failedÏpromptly€to€afford€notice€or€forward€papers,€it€is€irrelevant€whether€the€insurer€was€prejudiced.€€However,Ïwhen€initially€determining€whether€the€delay€was€"prompt,"€and€was€thus,€reasonable,€prejudice€to€theÏinsurer€is€a€factor€to€consider€in€assessing€reasonableness.€€òòSeeóó,€18€A.L.R.2d€at€449.€Ô€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌ |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔOur€courts€have€held€that€an€insured's€failure€to€notify€or€forward€papers€within€a€prescribed€timeÏis€excusable.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòMunal€Clinic€v.€Applegateóó,€38€Tenn.€App.€280,€273€S.W.2d€712€(1954).€ÏGenerally,€however,€a€delay€or€failure€to€give€notice€must€be€attributable€to€circumstances€beyond€theÏcontrol€of€the€insured.€€òòMeltonóó,€548€S.W.2d€at€315.Ô€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÛÛ›Ñ7€-‹XXdædÈ7Ñœ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌJOANNE€WHITE€&€DAVID€WHITE,à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àò ò)€Shelby€Chancery€No.€101989„2€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9502„CH„00031Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€,.+;+'h|%?` Å `€€Lß›TENNESSEE€FARMERS€MUTUALà à)ÌINSURANCE€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURTÏOF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€œMEMPHIS,€›TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€FLOYD€PEETE,€JR.,CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌò òANDREW€HUME€OWENSÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òJERE€FONESÌTHORP€AND€FONESÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌœÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌó óœà àÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€primary€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€insured€complied€with€certainÏnotice€ØØÙ  ÙÑ7€-‹XXdæXXdæ7Ñprovisions€of€an€automobile€liability€insurance€policy€issued€by€defendant.€€TheÏtrial€court€held€that€there€was€sufficient€compliance€with€the€policy€and€enteredÏjudgment€against€the€defendant€insurance€company.€€For€the€reasons€stated€below,Ïwe€affirm.ÌÌà àAll€of€the€determinative€facts€are€undisputed.€€Defendant€issued€an€automobileÏliability€insurance€policy€to€Pete€Nickson,€Jr.€In€1987,€plaintiffs€were€injured€in€anÏautomobile€accident€that€allegedly€was€a€result€of€Nickson's€negligence.€€PlaintiffsÏbrought€suit€against€Nickson,€who€was€served€on€September€19,€1991.€Nickson€diedÏon€October€23,€1991,€without€having€notified€defendant€of€the€pending€suit€and€withoutÏhaving€forwarded€to€defendant€any€papers€relating€to€the€suit.€ÌÌà àPlaintiffs'€attorney€spoke€with€an€agent€of€defendant€on€October€28,€1991,€andÏinformed€the€agent€that€a€suit€was€pending€against€defendant's€insured.€€Plaintiff''sÏattorney€also€told€defendant's€agent€that€more€than€thirty€days€had€elapsed€sinceÍeffectuation€of€service€of€process€upon€the€insured€and€that,€therefore,€plaintiffs€wereÏpreparing€to€take€a€default€judgment€against€Nickson.€€Defendant€€took€no€action€toÏdefend€or€otherwise€appear€in€the€suit.€On€December€23,€1991,€a€default€judgmentÏwas€entered€in€a€Missouri€circuit€court€against€Nickson€in€the€amount€of€$20,000.00.€ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€then€filed€a€third€party€beneficiary€suit€against€defendant€in€theÏChancery€Court€of€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€seeking€to€recover€the€amount€of€theÏjudgment€under€Nickson's€insurance€policy.€€Defendant€argued€that€it€was€notÏobligated€to€pay€benefits€under€the€policy€because€Nickson,€the€insured,€failed€to€notifyÏdefendant€promptly€of€the€suit€and€failed€to€forward€litigation€papers€to€defendant,€bothÏof€which€were€required€by€the€policy.Ìà àÌà àFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€chancellor€found€that€the€insured€had€promptlyÏnotified€defendant€of€the€accident€shortly€after€it€occurred,€and€that€defendant€hadÏactual€knowledge€of€the€lawsuit€by€October€28,€1991.€The€chancellor€further€found€thatÏdefendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€insured's€failure€to€notify€it€of€the€institution€of€theÏsuit.€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€rendered€a€judgment€against€defendant€in€the€amountÏof€$20,000.00.€€It€is€from€this€judgment€that€defendant€appeals.ÌÌà àThe€insurance€policy€provides,€as€pertinent€to€the€issues€before€us:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òPART€E„„DUTIES€AFTER€AN€ACCIDENT€OR€LOSSó óÌà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àò òA.ó ó€€We€must€be€notified€promptly€of€how,€when€and€whereÏthe€accident€or€loss€happened.€€Notice€should€also€includeÏthe€names€and€addresses€of€any€injured€persons€and€ofÍany€witnesses.Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àò òB.ó ó€€A€person€seeking€coverage€must:Ìà8 àà8 à€€€€€€1.€€Cooperate€with€us€in€the€investigations,€settlement€or€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïdefense€of€any€claim€or€suit.Ìà8 àà8 à€€€€€€2.€€Promptly€send€us€copies€of€any€notices€or€legal€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àpapers€received€in€connection€with€the€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àaccident€or€loss....ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*Ìà8 àà8 àò òÌà8 àà8 àPART€F„„GENERAL€PROVISIONSó óÌà8 àà8 àò òÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*€€ó óÌà8 àà8 àò òLEGAL€ACTION€AGAINST€USÌà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àA.ó ó€€No€legal€action€may€be€brought€against€us€until€thereÏhas€been€full€compliance€with€all€the€terms€of€this€policy...ÌÌÓÓÌà àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€plaintiffs€wereÏentitled€to€recover€benefits€under€the€policy€when€the€insured€failed€to€notify€defendantÏpromptly€€of€the€suit€and€failed€to€forward€copies€of€notices€and€legal€papers€regardingÏthe€suit.€€Defendant€further€argues€that€the€plaintiffs€did€not€carry€their€burden€of€proofÏin€offering€an€excuse€for€the€insured's€failure€to€provide€such€notices€and€suit€papers.ÌÌà àWe€commence€our€analysis€by€noting€that€insurance€contracts€are€subject€to€theÏsame€rules€of€construction€and€enforcement€as€apply€to€contracts€generally.€€òòMcKimmÏv.€Bellóó,€790€S.W.2d€526,€527€(Tenn.€1990).€€Consequently,€in€the€absence€of€fraud€orÏmistake,€an€insurance€policy€will€be€interpreted€and€enforced€as€written,€even€thoughÏthe€policy€may€contain€terms€that€are€harsh€or€unjust.€€òòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Wilsonóó,€856ÏS.W.2d€706,€708€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àPolicy€requirements€for€prompt€notice€of€a€claim€or€suit€to€the€insurer€are€validÏand€enforceable€conditions€precedent€to€coverage.€€òòWilsonóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€709;ÏòòMcKimmóó,€790€S.W.2d€at€528;€òòHartford€Accident€&€Indemnity€Co.€v.€Partridgeóó,€192ÏS.W.2d€701,€702€(Tenn.€1946).€€In€the€absence€of€the€requisite€notice,€no€coverage€isÏafforded,€even€if€the€insurer€has€not€been€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòTennesseeÏFarmers€Mutual€Ins.€Co.€v.€Neeóó,€643€S.W.2d€673€675€(Tenn.€App.€1982);€òòWilsonóó,€856ÏS.W.2d€at€709.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€subject€insurance€contract€was€between€Nickson€and€defendant,Ïplaintiffs'€entitlement€to€benefits€under€the€policy€is€subject€to€the€provisions€andÏlimitations€contained€therein.€€This€fact€stems€from€the€longstanding€proposition€thatÏthe€rights€of€a€third€person€can€rise€no€higher€than,€and€are€dependent€upon,€the€rightsÏof€the€insured.€€òòHartford€Accident€&€Indem.€Co.€v.€Partridgeóó,€192€S.W.2d€701,€703Ï(Tenn.€1946);€€òòSeeóó€òòaccordóó,€òòWilsonóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€709;€òòJamison€v.€New€AmsterdamÏCasualty€Co.óó,€36€Tenn.€App.€267,€254€S.W.2d€353,€355€(1952).ÌÌà àWhether€plaintiffs€may€recover€under€the€insurance€policy€will€ultimately€turnÏupon€the€construction€and€application€of€the€term€"promptly."€€The€policy€requires€theÏinsured€to€notify€defendant€"promptly"€of€"how,€when€and€where€the€accident€or€lossÏhappened."€€The€policy€also€requires€the€insured€"promptly"€to€send€to€defendantÏ"copies€of€any€notices€or€legal€papers€received€in€connection€with€the€accident€orÏloss."ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€insured€promptly€notified€defendant€of€the€accident€afterÏit€occurred.€Thus,€defendant€may€not€properly€attempt€to€deny€coverage€on€grounds€ofÏuntimely€notice€because,€as€defendant€concedes,€the€insured€did€timely€notifyÏdefendant€of€the€accident.€€Accordingly,€we€will€address€only€defendant's€assertionÏthat€plaintiffs€are€precluded€from€recovery€under€the€policy€due€to€the€insured's€failureÏto€forward€notices€and€suit€papers€to€defendant.Ìà àÌà àThe€word€"promptly"€has€been€interpreted€by€our€courts€in€several€cases.€€In€theÏunreported€decision€of€òòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Hamiltonóó,€No.€01„A„01„9006„CH„00221,Ï1990€WL€165071€€(Tenn.€App.€€Oct.€31,€1990),€the€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€word,€'promptly'€implies€no€less€urgency€of€time€thanÏ'as€soon€as€practicable',€which€has€been€held€to€meanÏwhen€the€insured€becomes€aware€of€facts€which€wouldÏsuggest€to€a€reasonably€prudent€person€that€the€event€forÏwhich€coverage€is€sought€might€reasonably€be€expected€toÏproduce€a€claim€against€the€insurer.ÌÌòòId.óó,€No.€01„A„01„9006„CH„00221,€1990€WL,€at€*3.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€court,€in€both€òòWhaley€v.€Underwoodóó,€No.€03A01„9408„CV„00305,€1995€WLÏ140723€(Tenn.€App.€March€31,€1995),€and€in€òòWilsonóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€709,€quoted€withÏapproval€the€following€passage€from€44€AÔ€(ôÔMÔ€(XÔ.€JÔ€(ôÔURÔ€(XÔ.€2d€òòInsuranceóó€ðð€1330:Ìà8 àÓÓà8 àA€requirement€in€a€policy€for€'prompt'€or€'immediate€notice'Ïor€that€notice€must€be€given€'immediately'€'at€once',Ï'forthwith',€'as€soon€as€practicable',€or€'as€soon€as€possible'Ïgenerally€means€that€notice€must€be€given€within€aÏreasonable€time€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case.Ì€ÌòòWilsonóó,€856€S.W.2d€at€709;€òòWhaleyóó,€No.€03A01„9408„CV„00305,€1995€WL,€at€*2.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThus,€in€order€for€notices€or€legal€papers€to€be€deemed€to€have€been€sent€orÏreceived€"promptly,"€they€must€have€been€sent€or€received€"within€a€reasonable€timeÏunder€the€circumstances€of€the€case."€òòLee€v.€Leeóó,€732€S.W.2d€275€(Tenn.€1987);ÏòòWhaley€v.€Underwoodóó,€No.€03A01„9408„CV„00305,€1995€WL€247952€(Apr.€28,€1995ÏTenn.€App.).€€As€this€court€recently€stated,€"the€question€of€reasonableness€in€theseÏtype€cases€is€an€issue€for€the€court."€€òòWhaleyóó,€No.€03A01„9408„CV„00305,€1995€WL,€atÏ*2€(citing€òòLeeóó,€732€S.W.2d€at€276).ÌÌà àAll€of€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€case€must€be€taken€intoÏconsideration€in€determining€the€reasonableness€of€a€delay€in€forwarding€suit€papers.ÏPertinent€circumstances€that€may€bear€on€the€issue€of€the€reasonableness€are:€€(1)€€theÏtime€intervening€between€the€accident€and€the€date€of€notice€to€the€insured,€òòSeeÏgenerallyóó,€òòMelton€v.€Republic€Vanguard€Ins.€Co.óó,€548€S.W.2d€313,€315€(Tenn.€App.Ï1976);€(2)€whether€the€claim€is€made€directly€by€the€insured€person,€òòJackson€v.€StateÏFarm€Mutual€Auto€Ins.€Co.óó,€29€So.€2d€177€(La.€1946);€C.T.€Drechster,€Annotation,ÏòòLiability€Insurance:€€clause€with€respect€to€notice€of€accident€or€claim,€etc.,€or€withÏrespect€to€forwarding€suit€papersóó,€18€A.L.R.2d€443€(1951);€(3)€the€time€when€theÏinjured€party€discovered€the€existence€and€identity€of€the€insurer;€òòWilsonóó,€856€S.W.2dÏat€709;€(4)€what,€if€any,€prejudice€to€the€insurer€has€been€caused€by€the€delay;× ƒ/ ××  ×€(5)Ígood€faith€and€due€diligence€of€the€injured€party;€òòLeeóó,€732€S.W.2d€at€276;€òòSeeóóÏòògenerallyóó,€òòHamiltonóó,€No.€01„A„01„9006„CH„00221,€1990€WL€165071€at€*3;€òòHartfordÏAccident€&€Indem.€Co.€v.€Creasyóó,€530€S.W.2d€778,€780„81€(Tenn.€1975);€€òòMelton€v.ÏRepublic€Vanguard€Ins.€Co.óó,€548€S.W.2d€313,€315€(Tenn.€App.€1976);€and€(6)€whetherÏthere€was€reasonable€excuse€for€the€insured's€noncompliance.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€òòHamiltonóó,€No.€01„A„01„9006„CH„00221,€1990€WL€165071€at€*3;€òòFisher€v.€Mutual€of€Omaha€Ins.€Co.óó,€503ÏS.W.2d€191,€193€(Tenn.€1973);€òòCreasyóó,€530€S.W.2d€at€780;€òòMeltonóó,€548€S.W.2d€atÏ314„15.ÌÌà àIn€evaluating€the€factors€delineated€above€in€conjunction€with€the€facts€of€theÏpresent€case,€we€conclude€that€the€insured€was€excused€from€strict€compliance€withÏthe€policy€requisites.€€First,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€insured€notified€defendant€of€theÏaccident€in€a€prompt€manner.€€In€addition,€the€injured€party€in€this€case€is€not€theÏinsured,€but€rather,€is€a€third€party€claiming€entitlement€to€benefits.€€Generally,€where€itÏis€not€the€insured€that€is€directly€making€a€claim€against€its€insurer,€the€fact€that€there€isÍa€delay€is€less€likely€to€be€deemed€unreasonable.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€18€A.L.R.2d€at€449;ÏòòJackson€v.€State€Farm€Mutual€Auto€Ins.€Co.óó,€29€So.€2d€177€(La.€1946).€€Furthermore,Ïwe€find€that€plaintiffs€acted€with€due€diligence€in€ascertaining€and€notifying€defendantÏof€the€fact€that€a€suit€had€been€instituted€against€defendant's€insured.€€Defendant€wasÏnotified€of€the€suit€in€ample€time€to€appear€and€defend;€consequently,€we€are€unable€toÏconclude€that€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€Finally,€we€deem€the€fact€thatÏthe€insured€passed€away€34€days€after€he€was€served€with€process€to€be€an€adequateÏexcuse€for€his€failure€to€forward€suit€papers.€ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€have€requested€that€they€be€awarded€punitive€damages€due€toÏdefendant's€alleged€bad€faith€conduct.€€We€do€not€find€that€this€is€an€appropriate€caseÏfor€an€award€of€punitive€damages€and,€therefore,€respectfully€decline€plaintiffs'Ïrequest.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€defendant,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€€€€€ÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌà à