WPC ]L|w5at^vrIj&qB c˘ԯatܵW6-dS?x0Ej88NEbhHRΕ K" T@R`Xɻl󨾺/ KP\c:83oA um m"F,"~+cbOqlaw.|Ӄܿif~Af=Zk71MBoK%+6"FKC7p*kY?3(̻˹;V>N&,{dNe 5^29"VTj4uUm5 }t?Ki"f&CL}3]o}sW q$+Ovvm/3&u(k ¢Y~Y:mh77ajbZ? xK<$]ە>V`-&7\=<ĪH=({b#\ % ^ # 0/ UJN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 720Nb 1ud 72E  0 c  1p 72 1) 72b 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASI 0b 0D AJHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0.)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~( 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.wpt3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. - -(|G2s$ !.8Idd8         0  XiX d(|3$ !.8Idd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Idd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Idd8     _I8iXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  @November1999SESSIONS $ XiXI #IXXi#  CHARLESL._WELBORN_Ԁv.MELVINK._SELLARS_XiXI  " @E E  AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforRutherfordCounty  " @ No.39114RobertE._Corlew_,Judge   @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.M199900164_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust16,_2000_Ԁ }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   Thisisaninsurancecase.Theplaintiffwasdrivingamotorcyclewhenhewasinvolvedinan P  accidentwithanautomobiledrivenbyanuninsuredmotorist.Theplaintiffsmotorcyclewasnot < listedinhisinsurancepolicy.Theplaintifffiledsuitseekingdamagesforhisinjuriessustainedin (x theaccident.Theplaintiffsinsurancecompanymovedforsummaryjudgmentinthecasebasedon d anexclusionintheplaintiffsinsurancepolicywhichdenieduninsuredmotoristcoveragefor P vehiclesforwhichinsurancewasnotaffordedunderthepolicy.#IXXie#XiXIThetrialcourtgrantedtheinsurance < companysmotionandtheplaintiffappealed.Weaffirm,findingthatthepolicyexclusionapplies ( totheplaintiffsmotorcycle.   Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.   HollyKirbyLillard,J.#IXi#XiX.I,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,J.,and t DavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. ` _Wm_._Kennerly_ԀBurger,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CharlesL.Welborn. 8 MichaelB._Leftwich_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MidCenturyInsurance,Company. !`  @66' OPINION #IXXi5 #XiXIԈ "8" #IXXi #XiXI   OnSeptember16,1997,Plaintiff/AppellantCharles_Welborn_Ԁ( _Welborn_)#IXXi #XiXIԀwasdrivinga $ $ motorcyclewhenhecollidedwithatruckdrivenbyDefendantMelvinSellars( Sellars).#IXXi #XiXIԀWelborn % % sustainedseriousphysicalinjuries.#IXXi #XiXIWelbornownedthemotorcyclehewasdrivingatthetimeofthe &!& accident.SellarstruckwasanuninsuredmotorvehicleasdefinedinTennesseeCodeAnnotated '"' 5671202(Supp.1999). p(#(   Atthetimeoftheaccident,WelbornhadanautomobileinsurancepolicywithMidCentury H*%* InsuranceCompany( MidCentury)#IXXi%#XiXI.Thepolicydefined yourinsuredcaras [_t]he_Ԁvehicle 4+&+ describedintheDeclarationsofthispolicyoranyprivatepassengercarorutilitycarwithwhichyou  ,p', replaceit.Thepolicydefined privatepassengercarand utilitycaras fourwheellandmotor  -\(-' vehicles.#IXXi#XiXIWelbornspolicylistedonevehicleinitsDeclarationssection,a1981ToyotaDeluxeT  truck.ThemotorcycledrivenbyWelbornintheaccidentwasnotlistedonthepolicy.#IXXi#XiXI    Welbornspolicyincludedcoverageforaccidentsinvolvingvehiclesdrivenbyuninsured t motorists.TheuninsuredmotoristcoverageprovidedunderWelbornspolicywassubjectto ` exclusionslistedinthepolicy.Theexclusionatissueinthiscasestated: L  8  Thiscoveragedoesnotapplytobodilyinjurysustainedbyaperson:$ t    (5h83"3"  8  3P25h  1  .3  0`     Whileoccupyinganyvehicleownedbyyouorafamilymemberforwhich  L  insuranceisnotaffordedunderthispolicy....3P݌ 8 ` `  Ќ  #IXXi#XiXIThepolicydidnotdefine vehicle,butdefined motorvehicleforpurposesofthe Uninsured   Motoristsectionofthepolicyas alandmotorvehicle.     OnOctober21,1997,WelbornfiledsuitagainstSellarsseekingtorecoverdamagesforhis   injuries.Sellarswasservedwithprocessinthesuitbutdidnotfileananswer.MidCenturywas p alsoservedwithprocesspursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated5671206(a)(Supp.1999)as \ Welbornsuninsuredmotoristinsurancecarrier#IXXi#XiXI.#IXXi#XiXI H   OnMay19,1999,MidCenturyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentinthesuitbasedon  p theexclusiondescribedabove.OnDecember29,1998,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingMid  \ Centurysmotionforsummaryjudgment,statingthat, basedonapolicyexclusion,therewasnot H uninsuredmotoristcoverageunderthepolicyfortheincident....Fromthisorder,_Welborn_Ԁnow 4 appeals.#IXXi#XiXI   #IXXi<#XiXI  Onappeal,WelbornarguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttoMid  Century.Welbornassertsthatthedefinitionofaninsuredvehicleunderhispolicyisspecifically  limitedto fourwheellandmotorvehicles#IXXi#XiXI.Heclaimsthat,becausehecouldnothaveobtained  insuranceunderhispolicy#IXXi#XiXIԀonhismotorcycle,atwowheelvehicle,theexclusiontouninsured l motoristcoverageshouldnotapply.#IXXi#XiXI X    Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthe_movant_Ԁdemonstratesthatthere 0"  arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter #l! oflaw. See Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthe $X" legalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. See _Carvell_Ԁv. $D # Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisno %0!$ presumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. See _Bain_Ԁv.Wells , &"% 936_S.W.2d_Ԁ618,622(Tenn.1997).Therefore,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsgrantofsummary '#& judgmentisdenovoontherecordbeforethiscourt. See Warrenv.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722, (#'  723(Tenn.1997).#IXXi\#XiXI )$( #IXXi`$#XiXI  In Smithv._Hobbs_ ,848S.W.2d662(Tenn.Ct.App.1992),theplaintiffshusbandwas   drivingamotorcycleandwasinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentwithanuninsuredmotorist. Id.   at662.Heownedthemotorcyclebuthadnotlisteditasaninsuredvehicleunderhisautomobile  insurancepolicy. Seeid. at662663.#IXXi$#XiXIThehusbandeventuallydiedasaresultofinjuriesreceived t intheaccident. Seeid. at662.#IXXi&#XiXIԀAnexclusiontotheuninsuredmotoristcoverageprovidedunderhis ` policystated: L  ! ! (88 "3"  8  3(2  A  .3  0`     WedonotprovideUninsuredMotoristsCoverageforbodilyinjurysustained $ t byanyperson:3()݌ `` `  Ќ  ! ! (Uh88"3"  8  3*2Uh  1  .3  0`     whileoccupying,orwhenstruckby,anymotorvehicleortrailerofanytype  8  ownedbyyouoranyfamilymemberwhichisnotinsuredforthiscoverage $  underthepolicy.3**݌ ` `  Ќ   Id. at662.Theissuebeforethecourtwas whether,underthepolicyreliedon,plaintiffsdecedent   haduninsuredmotoristcoverageforacollisioninvolvingthevehiclewhichheownedandoperated   andwhichwasnotlistedonthepolicyofinsurance. Id. at663. p   The Smith courtheld,citingtheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisionin Hillv.Nationwide H Mut.Ins.Co. ,535S.W.2d327,328(Tenn.1986),thattheexclusioninthehusbandspolicydidnot 4 violatetheuninsuredmotoriststatutes. Smith ,848S.W.2dat663.The Smith courtdescribedthe  p exclusioninhusbandspolicyas aclassexclusioncreatedbyplaintiffschoicenottoincludehis  \ motorcycleasacoveredvehicleonhisliabilitypolicy. Id. at663.Thecourtfoundtheexclusion H wasclearandunambiguousinitsbarof#IXXi'#XiXIԀuninsuredmotoristcoverageforinjuriessustainedwhile 4 occupyingavehiclenotinsuredforcoverageunderthepolicy. Seeid. at663.Thecourtheldthat   #IXXi0#XiXIcoverageshouldbedeniedforthehusbandsmotorcycleaccidentonthebasisoftheexclusion.#IXXi1#XiXI Id.    at664.    In Hillv.NationwideMut.Ins.Co. ,relieduponin Smithv.Hobbs ,theplaintiffwas  operatingamotorcyclenotlistedonhispolicywhenhewasinvolvedinacollisionwithanuninsured l motorist. Hill ,535S.W.2dat328.#IXXi~2#XiXIԀTheplaintiffspolicyexcludeduninsuredmotoristcoveragefor X  injurytotheinsuredwhileoperatingalandmotorvehicleownedbytheinsuredbutnotinsuredunder D! thepolicy. Seeid. Theplaintiffarguedthattheexclusionshouldnotbepermittedunderthe 0"  uninsuredmotoriststatutesbecauseitproduced arbitraryandillogicalresults. Id. at329.The #l! plaintiffnotedthatcoveragewouldbeaffordedifaninsuredwereinjuredwhileoperatingavehicle $X" coveredbythepolicy,orifheisapedestrianinjuredbyanuninsuredmotorist,butnotiftheinjury $D # occurswhileoperatingafamilyvehiclenotlistedontheinsurancepolicy. Seeid. The Hill court %0!$ notedpriorcasesfromotherjurisdictionswhichreasonedthat,toaffordcoveragetoaninsuredwhile &"% operatinganuninsuredvehicle: '#& 8  8wouldallowaninsuredtopurchaseoneliabilitypolicywithuninsuredmotorist )$(  coverageandthereafterhavesuchcoverageextendedtocoverhimselfandoccupants |*%) whiledrivinganynumberofvehiclesownedbyhimwithoutpayinganyadditional  premiumsforthisaddedcoverageandrisk.    Hill ,535S.W.2dat32930(quoting Rodriguezv.MarylandIndemnityIns.Co. ,24Ariz.App.392, t 539P.2d196,198(1975)).The Hill courtupheldapplicationoftheexclusionunderthepolicy, ` notingthattheplaintiffhaddeclineduninsuredmotoristcoverageonhissonsmotorcycle. Id. at L  33132. 8    Inthiscase,itisundisputedthatthemotorcycledrivenbyWelbornwasnotlistedonhis  ` insurancepolicy.Welborndistinguishes Smith and Hill ,notingthatcoverageunderhispolicywas  L  limitedto fourwheellandmotorvehiclesandthat,consequently,hismotorcyclecouldnothave  8  beenaninsuredvehicleunderhispolicy.Welborndoesnotarguethathismotorcyclewasan $  uninsurablevehicle,onlythatcoveragecouldnothavebeenaffordedunderthispolicy.Wefindthat   thereasoningin Hill and Smith mustapply,andthattheexclusionisenforceableunderthese   circumstances.     Welbornarguesthat,eveniftheexclusionisenforceable,itdoesnotapplytoaninsured p whileoperatingamotorcycle.#IXXi74#XiXITheexclusionatissueinthiscasedeniesuninsuredmotoristcoverage \ forinjuriessustainedwhile occupyinganyvehicle...ownedbyyouorafamilymemberforwhich H insuranceisnotaffordedunderthispolicy.#IXXi?#XiXIԀ_Welborn_spolicydoesnotdefinetheterm vehicle 4 alone;however,itdefinestheterm motorvehicleforpurposesofthe UninsuredMotoristsection  p ofthepolicyasa landmotorvehicle.Thedefinitiondoesnotlimitthemeaningoftheterm  \  vehicletofourwheelvehicles.Inlightofthisdefinition,aswellasthecourtsholdingin Smith , H wefindthatthetermsofthepolicysexclusionaremetandthatthetrialcourtproperlydenied 4 uninsuredmotoristcoverageonthatbasis.Therefore,weaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummary   judgmenttoMidCentury.   #IXXi@#XiXI  Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsaretaxedagainstAppellant,Charles  Welborn,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#IXXi@D#XiXI  #IXXi/E#XiXI     `     h   򀀀 0"     `     h   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.