WPC }Hߡw+: }ݡ L!UҺýnoj]f].?Z5n+th >ԉÃL)/;:cz%uȹJ0 ^"d] 7T՚#XhJۢڃ'oӼ!> RyJGoY A1$RL$ ~aVdKTCN >}OB1'Ji&~L$ ;Pl\ޑY5^3b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;=Eb 0 B 0 D3C D-v 0K ASA 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R!f$      1     _Ԁ42U.S.C.2000eetseq. (1994). R!f$      2     _ԀTenn.CodeAnn.421101etseq.(1999). R!f$      3     _ԀFoyTrailerRentalswascoveredfromNovember6,1997toNovember6,1998. - -(|G2!f$ !.8\dd8         0  ҄ d(|3A$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8+XXdd8  @ ?INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#? #Ԉ ,   September20,2000Session X X+X #XX+#AMERICANINDEMNITYCOMPANYv.FOYTRAILERRENTALS,INC.,  ` etal.X+X  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty 0  @@No.9905243D.J.Alissandratos,Chancellor  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200000397_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember28,_2000_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A      X4XXX+AmericanIndemnityCompanysoughtadeclaratoryjudgmentthatitscommercialgeneralliability  (CGL)policydidnotcoverclaimsmadebyMs.JohnsonagainsttheAppellantsinherfederalcourt   complaintandthatitdidnothaveadutytodefendAppellantsinthefederalaction.TheChancery  CourtforShelbyCountyheldthattherewasnocoverageandnodutytodefend.Appellants  appealed.Weaffirm. ~ #X+XX X4##XX+#X+X Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and Z Remanded  J   #X+W#X+X.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., *z joined.HollyK.Lillard,J.,filedaconcurringopinion. j CharlesW.Hill,Memphis,Tennessee;andKimberlyE.Sands,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe J appellants,FoyTrailerRentals,Inc.,MichaelRivalto,andPamelaHinman. : DavidS.Zinn,Brentwood,Tennessee,fortheappellee,AmericanIndemnityCompany. !   OPINION #XX+E#X+X #" #XX+ #X+X X4XXX+    OnNovember20,1999,AngelaJohnson(Ms.Johnson)filedacomplaintintheUnitedStates % $ DistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofTennesseeagainsttheappellants,FoyTrailerRentals,Inc. v&!% (Foy),MichaelRivalto(Mr.Rivalto),andPamelaHinman(Ms.Hinman), interalia ,alleging b'"& violationsofTitleVII #  1      ׀andoftheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.X #  2      ׀Inhercomplaint,Ms.Johnson N(#' averredthatshewasanemployeeofThermoKingandthatonoraboutNovember6,1997,she :)$( confidedinherboss,Ms.Wade,thatshemaybepregnant.WhenitbecameclearthatMs.Johnson  wasindeedpregnantandwasgoingtokeepherbaby,Ms.JohnsonallegedthatMs.Wadebeganto  openlydisapproveofMs.Johnsonsdecision.Ms.Johnsonfurtherallegedinhercomplaintthat  otherworkers followed[Ms.Wades]lead.Specifically,Ms.JohnsonaverredthatMs.Hinman, t whowasanemployeeofFoybutwhoworkedinthesameofficewithMs.Johnson,calledMs. ` Johnsona stupidwinch,a bitch,andother vileandsexistnames;toldMs.Johnsonthatshe L  wasgoingtofireMs.Johnsonsexhusbandbecauseshewastiredofdealingwiththewage 8  assignment/garnishmentforchildsupportforMs.Johnsonstwochildren;andloudlyannouncedthe $ t incorrecttimeofMs.Johnsonsarrivalandthenproclaimedhertobelate.Additionally,Ms.  ` JohnsonstatedinhercomplaintthatMr.Rivalto,oneofMs.Johnsonsimmediatesupervisorsand  L  oneoftheprincipalofficersofThermoKingandFoy,toldherthat itusetobewomenlikeyou  8  wouldstepoutofthefield,ontothesideofaroad,haveababyandgobacktowork;soIdonot $  knowwhatthebigdealis?Mr.RivaltofiredMs.JohnsononApril14,1998.     Ms.JohnsonallegedthatThermoKingandFoyareliableunderthedoctrineofrespondeat   superiorforthegenderandracialdiscriminationcommittedbytheiremployees.Ms.Johnsonstated   thatshesufferedlostwages,embarrassment,humiliation,mentalanguish,emotionalpainand p suffering,andlossofenjoymentoflifeduetothehostile,abusive,andoffensiveworkenvironment \ createdbytheAppellants.Ms.JohnsonsoughtpunitivedamagesbasedupontheAppellantsalleged H willful,oppressive,anddeliberatelyindifferentconduct.BeforeanAnswerwasfiled,Ms.Johnson 4 amendedhercomplainttoincludeadditionalcausesofactionforracialdiscriminationandretaliatory  p dischargepursuantto42U.S.C.1981.  \   Duringthetimetheallegedharassmentoccurred,FoywasinsuredunderaCommercial 4 GeneralLiabilityPolicy(CGL)issuedbyAmericanIndemnityCompany. #  3      ׀BylettersdatedJanuary   14,1999,AmericanIndemnityCompanynotifiedFoy,Mr.Rivalto,andMs.Hinmanthatitwould   defendtheminthefederalactionbroughtbyMs.Johnsonunderafullreservationofrights,including  itsrighttodenycoverageandtowithdrawfromthedefenseitwasprovidingthem.    OnJune11,1999,AmericanIndemnityCompanyfiledaComplaintforDeclaratory l JudgmentintheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty,Tennessee,inwhichitaskedthecourtto X  determinewhetherithadanobligationtodefendandindemnifyFoy,Mr.Rivalto,andMs.Hinman D! fortheclaimsmadeinMs.JohnsonsfederalsuitandwhethertheCGLpolicyprovidedcoverage 0"  fortheallegationsmadeagainstFoy,Mr.Rivalto,andMs.Hinmaninthefederalsuit.American #l! IndemnityCompanyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummary $X" judgmentinfavorofAmericanIndemnityCompany,findingthatundertheCGLpolicy,American $D # IndemnityCompanydidnothaveadutytodefendthefederalcourtactiononbehalfofFoy,Mr. %0!$ Rivalto,andMs.Hinman,andthatthepolicyinquestiondidnotprovidecoveragefortheallegations &"% againstFoy,Mr.Rivalto,andMs.Hinmaninthefederalaction.Foy,Mr.Rivalto,andMs.Hinman '#& appealed,raisingtheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingAmericanIndemnity (#' Companysmotionforsummaryjudgment. )$( Ї  Thisappealinvolvesquestionsregardinganinsurancepolicyscoverageandaninsurersduty  todefendwhichrequiresthiscourttointerprettheinsurancepolicyinlightoftheclaimsasserted  againsttheinsured.Ifanyoneoftheallegationsmadeagainsttheinsurediscoveredbythepolicy,  theinsurerhasadutytodefendthelawsuitregardlessofthenumberofallegationsfallingoutside t ofcoverage. DrexelChem.Co.v.BituminousIns.Co. ,933S.W.2d471,480(Tenn.Ct.App.1996) ` (citationsomitted).  Issuesrelatingtothescopeofcoverageandaninsurersdutytodefendare L  questionsoflaw. SeeStandardFireInc.Co.v.ChesterODonley&Assoc.,Inc., 972S.W.2d1, 8  5(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Summaryjudgmentisappropriatelyusedinresolvinglegalquestionsonly $ t whentherelevantfactsareundisputed. SeeSt.PaulFireandMarineIns.Co.v.Torpoco ,879  ` S.W.2d831,834(Tenn.1994).  L      Thetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentisnotentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectness $  onappeal. SeeMcClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership ,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996).   Rather  wemustreview denovo whethertherequirementsofTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56   havebeenmet. SeeMasonv.Seaton ,942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).Asummaryjudgmentis   warrantedonlywhentherearenogenuine,materialfactualdisputeswithregardtotheclaimor   defenseassertedinthemotionandwhenthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatterof p law. SeeBainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997). \   TheinsurancepolicyissuedbyAmericanIndemnityCompanytoFoyTrailerRentalsisin 4 therecord.Therearenofactualdisputesconcerningthecontentsofthispolicy;thus,its  p interpretationpresentsonlyaquestionoflaw.ThesummaryjudgmentgrantedtoAmerican  \ IndemnityCompanycanstandonlyifitisestablished,asamatteroflaw,thattheCGLpolicydoes H notcovertheassertedclaimsagainsttheAppellants.   4   Insurancecontractsaresubjecttothesamerulesofconstructionandenforcementasgeneral   contracts. SeeMcKimmv.Bell ,790S.W.2d526,527(Tenn.1990).Absentfraudormistake,the  insurancecontractshouldbeinterpretedaswritten,givingnaturalandordinarymeaningtoitsterms.   SeeAllstateIns.Co.v.Wilson ,856S.W.2d706,708(Tenn.Ct.App.1992); DrexelChem.Co. ,933  S.W.2dat477.However,ambiguoustermsintheinsurancecontractwillbeconstruedagainstthe l insurerandinfavoroftheinsured. SeeHarrellv.MinnesotaMut.LifeIns.Co. ,937S.W.2d809, X  814(Tenn.1996).Insurancepolicesshouldbeconstruedasawholeandinareasonableandlogical D! manner. SeeEnglishv.VirginiaSur.Co. ,268S.W.2d338,340(Tenn.1954). 0"    Commercialgeneralliabilitypoliciesaredesignedtoprotecttheinsuredfromlossesarising $X" outofbusinessoperations.CGLpoliciesarenot allriskpolicies;rather,thesepoliciesprovide $D # theinsuredwithcoverageuptothepolicylimitsfordamagesforwhichtheinsuredbecomesliable %0!$ asaresultoftortliabilitytoathirdparty.Whenfacingcoveragequestions,theessentialelements &"% ofaCGLpolicyshouldbeconstruedinthefollowingorder:thedeclarations,insuringagreement '#& anddefinitions,exclusions,conditions,andendorsements. SeeStandardFireIns.Co. ,972S.W.2d (#' at7.Theinsuringagreementreflectsthelimitsofaninsurersliability.Ifcoverageisnotfoundin )$( theinsuringagreement,itwillnotbefoundelsewhereinthepolicy.Exclusionsarereadinterms |*%) oftheinsuringagreementtowhichtheyapply,andtheycanonlydecreasecoverage. Seeid.  h+&* Ї 0  In CoverageA.ofthepolicyissuedtoFoy,theinsuringagreementstatesasfollows:(#(# 0  COVERAGEA.BODILYINJURYANDPROPERTYDAMAGELIABILITY(#(# 0   (#(# 8  1.InsuringAgreementt   8  a.0`   Wewillpaythosesumsthattheinsuredbecomeslegallyobligatedtopayas L  damagesbecauseof bodilyinjuryor propertydamagetowhichthis 8  insuranceapplies[.]Wewillhavetherightanddutytodefendtheinsured $ t againstany suitseekingthosedamages.However,wewillhavenodutyto  ` defendtheinsuredagainstany suitseekingdamagesfor bodilyinjuryor  L   propertydamagetowhichthisinsurancedoesnotapply.... 8 ` `  8  ....    0  b.0` (#(#Thisinsuranceappliesto bodilyinjuryand propertydamageonlyif: ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(1)0 ` (#` (#The bodilyinjuryor propertydamageiscausedbyan occurrencethat p takesplaceinthe coverageterritory;and\ (# (# 0  0` (#(#(2)0 ` (#` (#The bodilyinjuryor propertydamageoccursduringthepolicyperiod.4 (# (# ThepresentdisputeconcernswhethertheallegationsmadebyMs.Johnsoninherfederalcomplaint  \ constitutean occurrencecausingher bodilyinjury.Itisundisputedthattheclaimsagainstthe H Appellantsaroseduringthecoverageperiodandinthecoverageterritory. 4   SectionVofthepolicydefined bodilyinjuryas bodilyinjury,sicknessordisease   sustainedbyaperson,includingdeathresultingfromanyoftheseatanytime. Occurrencewas  definedas anaccident,includingcontinuousorrepeatedexposuretosubstantiallythesamegeneral  harmfulconditions.Accordingly,AmericanIndemnityCompanyspolicycoversonlythosesums  Foybecomeslegallyobligatedtopayforbodilyinjury,sicknessordiseaseresultingfromanaccident l orcontinuousexposuretoaharmfulcondition.AmericanIndemnityCompanyclaimsthatthereis X  no bodilyinjuryallegedinMs.Johnsonscomplaint.AmericanIndemnityCompanyproposesthat D! Ms.Johnsonsallegationsof embarrassment,humiliation,mentalanguish,emotionalpainand 0"  suffering...andseriousmentalinjurydonotrisetothelevelof bodilyinjuryascontemplated #l! intheCGLpolicy,anditproposesthatMs.Johnsonsallegationsof episodiccryingandhairloss, $X" aresymptomsofemotionaldistress,andthusarenot bodilyinjuries. $D #   In BituminousFireandMarineInsuranceCompanyv.IzzyRozens,Inc. ,493F.2d257, &"% 261(6thCir.1974),acasearisingoutoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrict '#& ofTennessee,thecourtcited ProvidentLife&AccidentInsuranceCompanyv.Campbell ,79 (#' S.W.2d292(Tenn.Ct.App.1934),forthepropositionthataninsurancepolicycontemplates some )$(  injurytothebodyofaphysicalnatureinordertocomewithinthedefinitionofbodilyinjury. |*%) Additionally,in GuardianLifeInsuranceCompanyofAmericav.Richardson ,129S.W.2d1107  (Tenn.Ct.App.1939),thiscourtstatedthat   p0  [t]heword disease, unrestrictedbyanythinginthecontext ,includesdisease t ofthemindaswellasdiseaseofthebody.`hh 0   ` But,inthepolicyhereinvolved,theword diseaseis restrictedbythe L  word bodily;andgrammatically,theword bodilymodifies disease,aswell 8  as injury;andmanifestlyitwasinsertedforthepurposeofexcluding mental $ t disease . `hh 0   ` Theadjective bodilymeans oforpertainingtothebody,indistinction  L  fromthemind. 8 hh p Id. at1115(emphasisinoriginal)(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted).       Basedontheforegoingcaselaw,wemustagreewithAmericanIndemnityCompanys   positionthatMs.Johnsonscomplaintdidnotallegeany bodilyinjuryascontemplatedbythe   policy,andthus, CoverageA.ofthepolicydoesnotapply. p   AmericanIndemnityCompanycontendsthatthefollowingtwoexclusionswouldapplyif H coveragewasfoundunderthepolicy.The ExpectedorIntendedInjuryexclusionexemptedfrom 4 coverage [b]odilyinjuryorpropertydamageexpectedorintendedfromthestandpointofthe  p insured.The EmployersLiabilityexclusionexempted Bodilyinjuryto:(1)Anemployee  \ oftheinsuredarisingoutofandinthecourseof:(a)Employmentbytheinsured;or(2)Performing H dutiesrelatedtotheconductoftheinsuredsbusiness[.]However,becausethiscourtfindsthatthe 4 Appellantswerenotcoveredunder CoverageA.oftheCGLpolicy,itisunnecessaryforthiscourt   toaddresstheexclusionsto CoverageA.     Appellantscontendthattheyarealsocoveredby CoverageB.oftheCGLpolicyfor  personalinjuryliability.In CoverageB.ofthepolicyissuedtoFoy,theinsuringagreementstates  asfollows: l 0  COVERAGEB.PERSONALANDADVERTISINGINJURYLIABILITYD!(#(# 0  1.InsuringAgreement0" (#(# 0  a.0` (#(#Wewillpaythosesumsthattheinsuredbecomeslegallyobligatedtopayasdamages #l! becauseof personalinjuryor advertisinginjurytowhichthisinsuranceapplies. $X" Wewillhavetherightanddutytodefendtheinsuredagainstany suitseekingthose $D # damages.However,wewillhavenodutytodefendtheinsuredagainstany suit %0!$ seekingdamagesfor personalinjuryor advertisinginjurytowhichthisinsurance &"% doesnotapply....'#&` (#` (# 0  ....0` (#(#(#'` (#` (# 0  b.0` (#(#Thisinsuranceappliesto:|*%)` (#` (#  h+&* 0  0` (#(#(1)0 ` (#` (# Personalinjurycausedbyanoffensearisingoutofyourbusiness,  excludingadvertising,publishing,broadcastingortelecastingdonebyorfor  you[.] (# (#  Personalinjurywasdefinedas injury,otherthanbodilyinjury,arisingoutofoneormoreofthe ` followingoffenses:...d.Oralorwrittenpublicationofmaterialthatslandersorlibelsapersonor L  organizationordisparagesapersonsororganizationsgoods,productsorservices[.]Personal 8  injury [a]risingoutoforalorwrittenpublicationofmaterial,ifdonebyoratthedirectionofthe $ t insuredwithknowledgeofitsfalsityor [a]risingoutofthewillfulviolationofapenalstatuteor  ` ordinancecommittedbyorwiththeconsentoftheinsuredwasexcludedfromcoverage.  L  Accordingly,AmericanIndemnityCompanyspolicyprovidestheAppellantswithcoveragefor  8  personalinjuryarisingoutofFoysbusiness,includingslanderorlibel,butthepolicynotably $  excludesfromcoverageanypersonalinjuryduetoslanderorlibelcommittedwithknowledgeofits   falsityorwillfullycommittedinviolationofastatuteorordinanceprohibitingsuchconduct.     Tofullyunderstandwhatwasintendedas personalinjuryundertheAmericanIndemnity   Companyspolicy,itisessentialtounderstandwhatismeantbythephrase arisingoutof.Inthe p caseof Andersonv.SaveALot,Ltd. ,989S.W.2d277(Tenn.1999),theTennesseeSupremeCourt \ defined arisingoutofasfollows: H 0   ` Generally,aninjuryarisesoutofandinthecourseoftheemploymentifithasa  p rationalcausalconnectiontotheworkandoccurswhiletheemployeeisengagedinthe  \ dutiesofhisemployment;and,anyreasonabledoubtastowhetheraninjury aroseoutof H theemploymentistoberesolvedinfavoroftheemployee. GreatAmericanIndemnity 4 Companyv.Fridell ,198Tenn.360,280S.W.2d908(1955); Tappv.Tapp ,192Tenn.1,   236S.W.2d977(1951). (#(# 0   ` ....(#(# 0   ` Thephrase,inthecourseof,referstotimeandplace,andarisingoutof,tocause l ororigin;andaninjurybyaccidenttoanemployeeisinthecourseofemploymentifit X  occurredwhilehewasperformingadutyhewasemployedtodo;anditisaninjuryarising D! outofemploymentifcausedbyahazardincidenttosuchemployment.0" (#(# 0   ` Wehavesaidthataninjuryarisesoutoftheemployment whenthereisapparentto $X" therationalmind,uponconsiderationofallthecircumstances,acausalconnectionbetween $D # theconditionsunderwhichthework[was]requiredtobeperformedandtheresulting %0!$ injury. T.J.MossTieCo.v.Rollins ,191Tenn.577,235S.W.2d585(1951).&"%(#(#  Anderson ,989S.W.2dat27980(furthercitationsomitted).   (#'   Thereisafinelinetobedrawnbetweenthosepersonalinjurieswhichariseoutofthe |*%) employmentandthoseinjurieswhicharepurelypersonalinnaturethatoccurduringemployment. h+&* TakingMs.Johnsonscomplaintsasaverred,webelievethattheallegedactsoftheAppellantsarose  becauseoftheconcernsurroundingthetimeoffMs.Johnsonwouldhavetotakeduetoher  pregnancy.However,theremarksthatMs.Johnsonallegedlyenduredcanbeconsiderednothing  otherthanpurelypersonalinnature.BecausewefindthattheremarksallegedlysaidtoMs.Johnson t werepurelypersonalinnature,wefindthatnocoverageexistedunder CoverageB. `   AmericanIndemnityCompanycontendsthat,hadwefoundcoveragetoexistunderthe 8  policy,twoadditionalexclusionswouldapply.Becausethiscourtfoundthatnocoverageexisted $ t under CoverageB.,however,thiscourtdoesnotfinditnecessarytodiscusstheexclusions  ` containedintheAmericanIndemnityCompanypolicy.  L    Conclusion  $  sc  Wehavedetermined,asamatteroflaw,thatAmericanIndemnityCompanyspolicydoes   notcoveranyofMs.JohnsonscomplaintsagainsttheAppellants.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrial   courtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoAmericanIndemnityCompany.Thecostsofthisappealare   taxedtotheAppellants,FoyTrailerRentals,Inc.,MichaelRivalto,andPamelaHinman,andtheir l sureties,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. X    `     h     _____________________________________ X    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE#X+XX X4# #