ÿWPC, 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9w@a4¡µÄ 0@Ì 0l  0Dx 0J¼ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r  0|’ 0† 0” 1u$ 0d™ AQý ÆN 0D BX 0Du D/¹ Bè D3 U>8 B)v DCŸ AMâ U*/ Y }^v~ÛvÓY˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ z{E|}E~D€Ó€n~<$Œ¦¦<<3|x("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ ! #%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd ,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ûÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òAugust€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€policy€provided,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 àWe€may€cancel€by€mailing€to€the€named€insured€shown€in€the€declarations€at€theÏaddress€last€known€by€us:Ìà8 àa.€€at€least€ten€(10)€days€notice:Ìà8 àà à1)€if€cancellation€is€for€non„payment€of€premium;€orÌà8 àà à2)€if€notice€is€mailed€during€the€first€60€days€this€policy€is€in€effect€and€thisÏis€not€a€renewal€or€continuation€policy;€orÌà8 àb.€€at€least€20€days€notice€in€all€other€cases.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¼ÈXXdðdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÙ€ ÙóóœßR€-/,A1-j|›M` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌANCRO€FINANCE€COMPANY,€€à àà à)ÌIndividually€and€BURLAWN€STREET,à à)ÌIndividually,€and€BURLAWN€STREETà à)Ìfor€the€use€and€benefit€of€Ancro€Finance,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà àà àò ò)à àó óShelby€Law€No.€83037€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9708„CV„00177ò òÌCONSUMERS€USA€INSURANCE€€€€€à à)ÌCOMPANY,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà àò ò)ÌÌÌÌó óÌÌà0 àà àà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€L.€CHILDERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€œDefendant/Appelleeóó:›ÌÌW.€Ray€Jamieson€€€€à àà àà àà àAllan€B.€Thorp€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌBenjamin€T.€Wages,€Jr.à àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€€€€ÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÇØØÙ  ÙÑ7€¼ÈXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€is€an€insurance€case.€€The€plaintiff€purchased€an€automobile€insurance€policy€from€theÏdefendant.€€Through€a€series€of€events,€the€check€given€for€the€first€installment€of€the€insuranceÏcontract€did€not€clear€because€of€a€prior€stop„payment€order.€€Before€a€valid€check€could€beÏdelivered,€the€plaintiffððs€automobile€burned.€€The€œinsurance€company€defendant›€denied€coverageÏand€this€suit€ensued.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€WeÏaffirm.€€à à€œPlaintiff/Appellant›€Burlawn€Street€(ð ðStreetðð)€purchased€an€automobile€fromÏEnterprise€A/S€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€on€February€24,€1996.€€The€same€day,€œStreet€obtained›€aÏcomprehensive€and€collision€auto€insurance€policy€from€Consumers€USA€Insurance€CompanyÏ(ð ðConsumersðð).€€Sarah€C.€Johnson,€Streetððs€relative,€wrote€a€check€œfor›€$131.75€on€her€account€atÏNBC€bank€as€payment€for€the€first€installment€on€the€policy.€€Plaintiff/Appellant€Ancro€FinanceÏCompany€(ð ðAncroðð)€provided€financing€for€the€purchase,€based€on€the€insurance€policy€and€binderÏissued€by€Consumers.€€Ancro€purchased€the€sales€contract€between€Street€and€the€auto€dealer.€€AsÏa€prerequisite€to€this€purchase,€Ancro€required€that€it€be€named€as€loss€payee€under€the€insuranceÏbinder€issued€by€Consumers.€€€Ìà àOn€March€1,€1996,€œMs.›€Johnson€put€a€stop€order€on€the€check€for€the€first€installment€onÏthe€policy,€allegedly€because€she€believed€the€amount€had€already€been€paid.€€On€March€2,€StreetððsÏautomobile€œburned.€€Johnson›€rescinded€the€stop€order€of€the€check€on€March€4,€and€Street€notifiedÏConsumers€of€the€loss€on€the€same€œday.€€On€March›€œ4,›€Street€tendered€a€cash€payment€on€the€policyÏto€Consumers;€he€asserts€that€it€was€refused.€€On€March€5,€three€days€after€the€loss,€the€check€wasÏpresented€for€payment.€€The€bank€did€not€pay€the€check,€purportedly€because€of€the€original€stopÏœorder.€€On€March›€6,€the€bank€marked€the€check€ð ðstop€payment,ðð€and€it€was€ultimately€returned€toÏConsumers.€€The€parties€dispute€whether€the€account€on€which€the€check€was€written€hadÏsufficient€funds€to€pay€the€check.€€€Ìà àConsumers€refused€to€pay€the€loss.€€Street€and€Ancro€filed€this€lawsuit€to€recover€policyÏbenefits€from€Consumers.€€Consumers€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€arguing€that€theÏcheck€for€the€first€installment€on€the€insurance€contract€was€written€on€an€account€with€insufficientÍfunds,€and€therefore€the€contract€was€void€from€the€inception€and€Consumers€had€no€duty€to€payÏthe€claim.€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion,€and€Street€and€Ancro€appealed.€Ìà àOn€appeal,€Street€and€Ancro€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgmentÏin€favor€of€Consumers,€because€the€check€for€the€initial€installment€on€the€policy€was€not€returnedÏfor€insufficient€funds,€but€instead€was€marked€ð ðstop€paymentðð€due€to€Johnsonððs€mistaken€stopÏorder.€€Ancro€also€argues€that€it€was€entitled€to€notice€under€the€cancellation€provision€of€theÏinsurance€policy€and€that€Ancro€had€a€right€to€recover€independent€of€Streetððs€right€to€recover.€€Ìà àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€œlaw.€€Tenn.›€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€œexists.€ò òòòByrd›€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2dÏ208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€inÏfavor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€œevidence.€òòò òId.ó óóó›€at€210„11.€€Summary€judgment€isÏonly€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€from€the€facts€reasonably€permitÏonly€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€Since€onlyÏquestions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regarding€a€trial€court's€grantÏof€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgmentÏis€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€œò òòòId.€€Cowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southó óóó,Ï816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).›Ìà àOn€appeal,€Street€and€Ancro€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€policy€wasÏvoid€because€the€check€issued€for€the€policy€payment€was€not€returned€for€insufficient€funds.€ÏThey€contend€that€the€check€was€good€when€it€was€written,€and€that€it€was€unpaid€because€of€aÏmistake€made€by€the€bank.€€In€the€alternative,€Street€and€Ancro€contend€that€the€policy€was€in€effectÏat€the€time€of€the€loss€because€Consumers€delayed€seeking€payment,€and€that€the€bankððs€mistake€inÏhandling€the€stop€payment€order€did€not€void€the€policy.€€€€€€€€€Ìà à€Consumers€alleges€that,€on€the€day€the€check€was€written€and€for€seven€days€prior€to€theÏloss,€the€funds€in€the€account€were€insufficient€to€cover€the€check.€€Consumers€contends€that€StreetÏdid€not€intend€to€pay€the€initial€policy€premium€before€the€loss.€€Consumers€alleges€that€the€stopÏpayment€order€was€an€intentional€act€to€prevent€payment€of€the€policy€premium.Ìà àAlthough€the€reason€for€the€stop€payment€order€is€a€contested€factual€issue,€it€is€undisputedÏthat€the€premium€had€not€been€paid€at€the€time€of€the€loss.à àConsumers€œargues€that›€this€case€isÏcontrolled€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòò òTallent€v.€Tennessee€FarmersÏMut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€785€S.W.2d€339€(Tenn.€1990).€€ò òòòTallentóóó ó€involved€the€renewal€of€an€existingÏhomeownersðð€insurance€policy.€€The€insurer€mailed€the€homeowner,€Tallent,€a€renewal€declarationÏand€premium€notice,€advising€Tallent€that€her€coverage€would€expire€the€following€month.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€atÏ341.€€On€the€expiration€date,€Tallent€wrote€a€check€for€the€premium€and€mailed€the€check€to€theÏinsurance€company.€€When€the€insurance€company€received€the€check,€it€issued€a€receipt€informingÏTallent€that€the€policy€was€reinstated.€€A€few€days€later,€the€bank€returned€Tallentððs€check€to€theÏinsurance€company€for€insufficient€funds.€€The€insurance€company€immediately€sent€a€notice€toÏTallent€stating€that,€because€of€the€dishonored€check,€the€policy€had€lapsed€as€of€the€originalÏexpiration€date.€€A€fire€loss€occurred€before€Tallent€could€reinstate€the€policy€by€tendering€herÏpremium€payment€in€cash.€€à àAfter€examining€Tallentððs€bank€records,€theòòò ò€ó óóócourt€found€that€ð ðtheÏplaintiff€did€not€on€the€date€when€she€issued€the€check€or€at€any€time€thereafter€have€as€much€asÏœ$299,›€the€amount€of€the€premium,€on€deposit€in€her€checking€œaccount.ðð€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The›€court€also€foundÏthat€Tallent€ð ðknew€or€must€be€charged€with€knowing€that€the€check€could€not€have€been€honoredÏupon€presentation€to€the€drawee€bank.ðð€œò òòòIdóóó ó.€€The›€court€then€ruled€that€the€check€was€not€acceptedÏby€the€insurance€company€as€unconditional€payment,€regardless€of€the€receipt:€ÌÓÓà8 à€ð ðIn€the€absence€of€an€agreement€to€the€contrary,€the€delivery€of€a€check€to€anÏinsurer€and€its€acceptance€thereof€is€not€payment€of€the€debt€until€the€check€itselfÏhas€been€paid.€€€Thus€the€mere€giving€or€sending€of€a€worthless€check€to€the€insurerÏdoes€not€effect€the€payment€of€a€œpremium.ðð›€ò òòòÌÌÓÓId.€óóó óat€343€(quoting€14A€Appleman,€òòò òInsurance€Law€and€Practiceó óóó,€ðð€8144€(1985)).€ÍTherefore,€the€ò òòòTallentó óóó€court€held€that€payment€of€the€initial€premium€was€a€condition€precedent€toÏreinstatement€of€the€policy.€€œTherefore,€because›€the€premium€was€not€paid,€œthe›€policy€lapsed.€€€Ìà àœUnlike€òòò òTallentó óóó,€in€this€case,€the›€reason€the€check€was€œreturned€is›€in€dispute.€€However,€itÏis€undisputed€that€the€premium€had€not€been€paid€when€the€loss€occurred.€€Payment€occurs€whenÏthe€bank€accepts€the€check€upon€presentment,€not€when€the€check€is€written.€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€343€(citingÏò òòòSizemore€v.€E.T.€Barwick€Indus.,€Inc.óóó ó,€225€Tenn.€226,€465€S.W.2d€873€(1971)).€€UnderÏòòò òTallentó óóó,€payment€of€an€insurance€premium€by€check€creates€a€presumption€that€the€payment,€andÏthe€terms€of€the€policy,€are€conditional€upon€the€bank€honoring€the€check€upon€presentment.€òòò òÏTallentó óóó,€òòò òsupraó óóó€at€343.€€In€this€case,€Street€and€Ancro€proffered€no€evidence€that€the€insurerÏagreed€to€accept€the€check€as€anòò€unconditionalóó€œpayment,€which€would€rebut›€the€presumption.€€ò òòòId.Ïóóó óat€344.€€ÌœÇÌ›à àStreet€and€Ancro€note€that€the€insurance€contract€provided€for€ten„day€notice€beforeÏcancellation,œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€and€that€business€custom€in€the€insurance€industry€permits€the€œloss€payee›€to€œcureÏwithin›€this€time€period.€€However,€in€this€case,€the€policy€terms€do€not€apply€because€the€policyÏnever€went€into€effect.€€Therefore,€the€provision€for€notice€of€cancellation€of€the€policy€isÏirrelevant.Ìà àStreet€and€Ancro€also€argue€that€Consumers€failed€to€timely€deposit€the€initial€check€givenÏwith€the€application€and€œbinder,€and›€that€the€plaintiffs€œare€therefore›€entitled€to€coverage.€€They€citeÏno€authority€to€support€this€argument.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€defines€ð ðcheckðð€as€anÏinstrument€that€is€ð ðpayable€on€demand.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„3„104(f)€(1996).€€There€is€noÏstatute€or€contract€that€required€Consumers€to€deposit€the€check€within€a€certain€time.€€ThisÏargument€is€without€merit.€€à àOn€appeal,€Ancro€argues€that€it€was€entitled€to€notice€of€cancellationÏunder€the€terms€of€the€insurance€policy,€irrespective€of€Streetððs€right€to€recover€under€the€policy,Ïbecause€the€policy€contained€a€provision€for€notice€to€the€loss€payee€of€lapse€or€cancellation.€€ÏHowever,€as€noted€above,€Ìœthe›€policy€terms€on€notice€of€cancellation€do€not€apply€because€the€policy€never€went€into€effect.€ÏThis€argument€is€without€merit.€€€Ìà àIn€sum,€regardless€of€the€reasons€for€the€stop€payment€order€on€the€check,€under€the€factsÏof€this€case,€Street,€as€the€insured,€was€responsible€for€providing€a€valid€initial€payment€for€theÏpolicy€to€Consumers.€€Because€this€was€not€done,€the€policy€never€went€into€effect.€€Therefore,€theÍtrial€court€did€not€err€in€granting€Consumersðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.̜Ǜà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€against€the€Appellants,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó€ÌÌÌÌÌ