WPC/# # VUNa % 0 (w@4 1 UP@ 0l 0D 0J@ 0T  0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% D3 B 0@U>U 6WB)DC AMU*Fp5#9\v~9v AO!! 0D" D/" B#HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLD(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ [[DDӀڃ"3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X++++'dxd d("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd-2C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#/  44   YYY FILED4X October30,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.4AppellateCourtClerk  + !#d#/   $       00Thiswasbecausetheplaintiffwasdirty,havingworkedthatdayinthechickenhousesonhismothersfarm. { !#d#/   $       00Itisunlikelytheaccidentreportwasdated November6,1996,sincetheaccidentoccurredonNovember3,1995.ThedateofNovember6,1996,mayrepresenta slipofthepen.  !#d#/   $       00ThisprincipleisnowfoundinRule56.04.Thechangewaseffectiveafterthehearingbelow.  !#d#/   $       00 TennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCo.v.Anderson ,1989WL22698(Tenn.App.1989); NationwideMutualInsuranceCo.v.Shannon ,701S.W.2d615(Tenn.App.1985); Whitev.TennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCo. ,1996WL219674(Tenn.App.1996); McKimmv.Bell ,1988WL126835(Tenn.App.1988),affirmedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtat790S.W.2d526(Tenn.1990); RelianceInsuranceCo.v.AthenaCablevisionCorp .,560S.W.2d617(Tenn.1977).  !#d#/   $       00 Canron,Inc.v.FederalInsuranceCo. ,82Wash.App.480,918P.2d937(1996); GeneralAccidentIns.Co.v.Scott ,107Md.App.603,669A.2d773(1996); Schrothv.NewMexicoSelfInsurersFund ,113N.M.708,832P.2d399(1992); Weaverv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co .,936S.W.2d818(Mo.1997).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . /  P \RA'\0\RA'\7 XXdd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R352A1-j|6`  `@RߛDAVIDALCAZAR,    )C/ANO.03A019707CV00285      )̛      )      )v.      )      )      )      )      )CHRISTOPHERHAYES,   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )BRADLEYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT  Defendant,  )      )      )and      )      )      )GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES  )INSURANCECOMPANY,   )      )  UninsuredMotorist )HONORABLEEARLEG.MURPHY,  CarrierAppellee. )JUDGEForAppellant     ForAppelleeJIMMYW.BILBO     DONALDW.STRICKLAND   , Logan,Thompson,Miller,Bilbo, Grant,Konvalinka&Harrison,P.C.    ҀThompson&Fisher,P.C.  Chattanooga,TennesseeCleveland,Tennessee@    OPINION00X̜AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.    ThisappealcausesustofocusontheuninsuredmotoristprovisionsofanautomobileinsurancepolicyissuedbyGovernmentEmployeesInsuranceCompany( GEICO)toDeborahWheatley,themotheroftheplaintiffDavidAlcazar.Whenthisactionwascommenced,processwasissuedandservedonGEICOpursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.5671201,etseq.,theTennesseeuninsuredmotoriststatutes.ThetrialcourtgrantedGEICOsmotionforsummaryjudgment,findingthattheplaintiffhadfailedtocomplywiththenoticerequirementsofGEICOspolicy.Plaintiffappealed,arguing,inhiswords,thatthetrialcourt err[ed]ingranting[GEICOs]motionforsummaryjudgment,onthebasisthattimelynoticewasaconditionprecedenttorecoveryunderthepolicy,absentafindingofunreasonabledelayorprejudicetotheinsurer.Weaffirm.  TheaccidentatissueinthiscaseoccurredinBradleyCountyonNovember3,1995.Theplaintiffwasriding onthetrunkof[thedefendantChristopherHayes]car.HewasridingtherebecauseMr.HayeshadrefusedtolethimrideinsidetheϜcar. 6   כBecauseoftheallegednegligenceofthedefendantHayes,theplaintiff wasflungfromthetrunkofthecarontoWhiteRoadwherehehithisheadonthepavedroadway.Atthetimeoftheaccident,theplaintiff,whowasthen18yearsold,waslivingϜwithandworkingforhismotheronthefarmownedbyherandherϜhusband.Hewasahighschoolgraduate.  Asaresultoftheaccident,theplaintiffwastransportedtoErlangerHospitalinChattanooga,wherehewasadmittedtotheintensivecareunitofthatfacility.Heremainedinintensivecareforthreedays.Thereafter,hewastransferredtoaroom,wherehestayedforoneortwomoredays.WhenhewasϜreleasedfromthehospital,hereturnedtohismothershouse,whereheremaineduntilhemovedoutinJanuary,1996.  Theplaintiffsanswerstointerrogatoriesreflectthatheclaimsthefollowinginjuriesfromtheaccident: 8 Ihavepermanentbraindamage,fracturedskull,bruisedbraintwobilateralcerebralcontusions,backstrain,musclespasmsandneckpain.Ialsosufferfromleftwristpain.  OnOctober28,1996,theplaintiffandhismotherfirstmetwiththeattorneyswholaterfiledthisaction.ThecomplaintwasfiledonOctober30,1996.TheonlynameddefendantwasChristopherHayes.Aspreviouslyindicated,Mrs.WheatleysinsurancecompanyGEICOwasbroughtintothisactionpursuanttotheTennesseeuninsuredmotoriststatutes.  ThepolicyofinsuranceissuedbyGEICOtoMrs.Wheatleycontainsthefollowingpertinentprovisionsinitsuninsuredmotoristsection: 8 1.NOTICE 8 Assoonaspossibleafteranaccidentnoticemustbegivenusorourauthorizedagentstating:  8 (a)theidentityoftheinsured;   (b)8 thetime,placeanddetailsoftheaccident;and   (c)8 thenamesandaddressesoftheinjured,andofanywitnesses.@ ***  3.ACTIONAGAINSTUS 8 Suitwillnotlieagainstusunlesstheinsuredorhislegalrepresentativehavefullycompliedwithallthepolicyterms.Ӝ(Italicsinoriginal).TheplaintiffwasanameddriverinMrs.Wheatleyspolicy.Hewasan insuredunderthepolicy.  Mrs.Wheatleytestifiedbydepositionthat aroundthesametimethelawsuitwasfiled,shespoketoarepresentativeofGEICOandtoldthatpersonthatshe didnotwanttomakeaϜclaim.Shealsotestifiedthatshechangedhermindwhenshelaterlearnedthathersonhadsufferedaseriousbraininjury.  GEICOwasservedwithprocessinthiscaseonNovember4,1996.BylettertoMrs.WheatleydatedNovember12,1996,withacopytoherattorneys,GEICO acknowledge[d]receiptofanaccidentreportdatedNovember6,1996, 7   כinregardtoanautoaccidentinwhich,DavidAlcazar,wasinvolved.Apparently,theaccidentreportwasmailedtoGEICObyMrs.Wheatleyortheattorneyswhofiledthissuit.WhiletherecorddoesnotclearlyreflecttheprecisedateonwhichGEICOreceivedtheaccidentreport,itisclearthatitwassometimearoundthetimethelawsuitwasfiledonOctober30,1996.  WhenaskedwhytherequisitenoticewasnotgiventoGEICOatanearliertime,boththeplaintiffandhismothertestifiedthatitwasbecausetheplaintiffwasnotdriving.  Anappellatecourt,whenreviewingagrantofsummaryϜjudgment,mustdecideanewifjudgmentinasummaryfashionisappropriate. Cowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth ,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).Wemustaffirmthegrantofsummaryjudgment ifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Rule56.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P. 8   כ  Insurancecontractsaresubjecttothesamerulesofconstructionandenforcementasapplytocontractsgenerally. McKimmv.Bell ,790S.W.2d526,527(Tenn.1990);seealso AllstateIns.Co.v.Wilson ,856S.W.2d706,708(Tenn.App.1992); Whaleyv.Underwood ,922S.W.2d110,112(Tenn.App.1995).Therefore,generallyspeaking,courtsmustenforcecontractsaswritten,absentfraudormistake. Id .  In Leev.Lee ,732S.W.2d275(Tenn.1987),theSupremeCourtaddressednoticeprovisionsthatareconceptuallyidenticaltotheoneatissueinthiscase.Thatcourtheldthatsuchprovisionsrequire noticewithinareasonabletimeunderthecircumstancesofthecase. Id .at276.TheSupremeCourtfurtherexpoundedonthisnoticerequirementbystatingthatit 8 ...impos[es]adutyonaninsuredtogivenoticewhenhebecomes,orshouldbecomeawareof,factswhichwouldsuggesttoareasonablyprudentpersonthattheeventforwhichcoverageissoughtmightreasonablybeexpectedtoproduceaclaimagainsttheinsurer. Id .The Lee casealsoexaminesthosesituationswhereaclaimantcontendsthatheorshedidnotknow,untilshortlybeforegivingnotice,thatapolicyofinsuranceexistedthatprovideduninsuredmotoristcoverage,ordidnotknowthattheallegedtortfeasorwasuninsured: 8 ...itis...ageneralrulethatinorderforignoranceofcoveragetoexcuseaninsuredoradditionalinsuredfromfollowingtheproceduressetoutinaninsurancepolicy,itmustbeshownthattheclaimantexercisedduediligenceandreasonablecareinascertainingthattherewascoverageunderthepolicy. Id .TheSupremeCourtin Lee alsoheldthat [w]herethefactsandinferencesareundisputedthatnoticewasnotgivenwithinthetimerequiredbythepolicy,thereasonablenessofthedelaybecomesaquestionoflawforthecourt. Id .  TheplaintiffadmitsthatnoticeasrequiredbythepolicywasnotgiventoGEICOuntilsome12monthsaftertheaccidentoccurred.Onitsface,noticegiven12monthsafterthefactisnotpromptnotice.Therefore,wemustdetermineifthedelayingivingnoticeinthiscasewasreasonable underthecircumstancesof[this]case. Id .  TheplaintiffoffersanumberofreasonsforhisdelayingivingGEICOtherequisitenotice.Aspreviouslyindicated,heclaims,asdoeshismother,thathedidnotgivenoticebecausehewasunawarethattheuninsuredmotoristcoverageappliedtohimsincehewasnotdrivingavehicleatthetimeoftheaccident.Thisclaimedlackofknowledgeofcoverageisnotalegaljustificationforfailingtogivetherequisitenoticeinthiscasebecausethereisnothingintherecordtoindicatethattheplaintiff exercisedduediligenceandreasonablecareinascertainingthattherewascoverageunderthepolicy. Lee ,732S.W.2dat276.  Theplaintiffalsoarguesthathesuffered permanentbraindamageintheaccidentandthatthisshouldexcusethedelayingivingnotice.Therecordbeforeusdoesnotdisclosethenatureandextentoftheplaintiffsbraindamage;nordoesitreflecthow,ifatall,thisdamageaffectedtheplaintiffscognitivefunctions.Wedoknowfromtheplaintiffsanswerstointerrogatoriesthathehadworkedandattendedschoolsincetheaccident.Theplaintiffs barebonesstatementthathesufferedpermanentbraindamageisinsufficient,standingalone,toexcusehiscompliancewiththenoticeprovisionsofthesubjectpolicy.  ThefactssupportingGEICOsmotionmakeoutitsclaimforrelief.Ontheotherhand,thefactspresentedbytheplaintiffinoppositiontoGEICOsproperlysupportedmotionforsummaryjudgmentdonotestablishalegalbasisforexcusingthelatenoticeinthiscase.  Thetypeofnoticeatissueinthiscasehasbeenlabeledbythecourtsofthisstateas avitalandindispensableconditionprecedenttorecoveryunderthepolicy. HartfordAccidentandIndemnityCo.v.Creasy ,530S.W.2d778,779(Tenn.1975). Thegeneralpurposeofanoticeprovisionistomaketheinsurerawarethataclaimmaybeforthcomingandprovideanadequateopportunityforinvestigation. AllstateInsuranceCo.v.Fitzgerald ,743F.Supp.539,542(W.D.Tenn.1990).  TheplaintiffarguesthathisfailuretogiveGEICOtherequisitenoticeshouldnotdefeatcoverageinthiscasebecausetheinsurancecompanyfailedtoshowthatitwasprejudicedbythelatenotice.Itistruethatthereisnoshowingofactualprejudiceintherecord;butitisclearthatcontrollingprecedentdoesnotrequireashowingofsuchprejudice. PhoenixCottonOilCo.v.RoyalIndemnityCo .,205S.W.128,130(Tenn.1918); HartfordAccidentandIndemnityCo. ,530S.W.2dϜat779(Tenn.1975)( thereneednotbeanyshowingofprejudice.)  TheEasternSectionoftheCourtofAppealshaspreviouslyexpresseditsfeelingthattheplaintiffs noprejudiceargumentis appealing, NorthRiverIns.Co.v.Johnson ,757S.W.2d334,33536(Tenn.App.1988)(Franks,J.);however,asweexpressedinthe NorthRiverIns.Co. case,theargumentssupportingtheplaintiffspositiononthequestionofprejudice arebasedonpublicpolicyconsiderations,whicharetobedeclaredbytheSupremeCourtandthelegislativebranch. Id .at336.ItisnotourprerogativetooverrulecontrollingSupremeCourtprecedent.  WehaveexaminedalloftheTennesseeauthority 9   כcitedbytheplaintiff.Wedonotfindthatanyofitsupportstheplaintiffspositioninthiscase.Hisauthorityfromotherjurisdictions, :   כwhilesupportiveofhisbasicargumentregardingprejudice,doesnotexpressthelawofthisState;infact,theyareallcontrarytocontrollingSupremeCourtprecedentholdingthataninsurerdoesnothavetoshowalackofprejudiceinacasesuchastheonebeforeus.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellantandhissurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_______________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J._______________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.