WPC EL9FoLqr4r2$|W멊+d!Xҟ9FU?i*Ȯc^ǀbeįMь q+9a2½mϲ~o9um @~7l~tPko[m[ λO~!圢3Ry$n^BX -tD/b*D |G8YWb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 11NEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 5,,,,0Ru) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularfdJ)M%ZProgra C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2+$ !.8dd8         0  4 d(|3A $ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A $ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ OINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#O #Ԉ ,   October17,2000Session X XX #XX#HAROLDANGUSv.WESTERNHERITAGEINSURANCECOMPANYXX   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMadisonCounty  h @@No.51235JoeC.Morris,Chancellor  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200000902_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember13,2000 '  AV) ` dE<` A       X6XXXThisappealarisesfromadisputebetweenContractorandInsureroverinsurancecoverageduring  abuildingdemolitionproject.Duringtheproject,Contractorknowinglydamagedanadjacent  structure.WhensuitwasbroughtagainstContractorbytheownersoftheadjacentstructure,Insurer  refusedcoverage.ThetrialcourtfoundInsurerspolicyandendorsementtobeambiguousandthus z unenforceable.Wedisagree,findingthatthepolicyandendorsementarenotambiguousandthat f theyclearlystatethatInsurerwillprovidenocoverageforintentionaldamagetootherstructures. R WereversethetrialcourtsrulingandfindthatInsurerisnotliableunderthepolicy. >   #XXX X6ˬ##XXw#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversed;and j Remanded   Z   #XU#XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK. : _Lillard_,_J.J._,joined. * JohnS.Little,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WesternHeritageInsuranceCompany.   PhillipL.Davidson,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,HaroldAngus. !    OPINION #XXC #XX z#" #XX` #  XX  In1992,Mr.HaroldAnguspurchasedageneralliabilityinsurancepolicyfromWestern Z% $ HeritageInsuranceCompany(Western).In1993,theCityofJacksonawardedhimacontractto J&!% demolishabuildingknownas_Buddie_sPawnShop.As percityregulations,Mr.Anguswas :'"& requiredtohavegeneralliabilityinsurancebeforebeginningwork.Ashehaddoneseveraltimes *(z#' inthepast,Mr.Anguspurchasedanendorsementtohis1992generalliabilitypolicy.This )j$( endorsementcoveredthe wreckingofbuildings,specifically_Buddie_sPawnShop.  *Z%)   _Buddie_sPawnShopwasabuildingthathadasharedwallor partywallwithasecond +:'+ structure.Allpartiesunderstoodthatthesecondstructurewouldmostlikelybedamagedinsome ,*(, wayasthedemolitionprojectwouldrequiretheremovalofthispartywall.Indeed,afterthe -)- completionofthedemolition,theownersoftheadjoiningstructureallegedthattheysufferedheavy  damagetoboththeirbuildingandtheirbusinessasaresultoftheproject.Theyclaimedtheywere  eventuallyforcedtocloseduetothisdamageandbroughtsuitagainstMr.Angusfortheirlosses.      Mr.AngussoughtcoverageunderhisinsurancepolicywithWesternwhorefusedtocover p himunderthesecircumstances.WesternclaimedthatMr.Angushadintentionallyandknowingly `  damagedtheadjoiningpropertyandthuswasnotcoveredundertheirpolicy.Mr.Angusclaimed P  thatWesternhadmodifiedthecoveragetoincludesuchdamage.Inaddition,heclaimedthatthe @  endorsementhepurchasedrenderedtheoriginalcontractambiguousandunenforceable.Mr.Angus 0  alsoassertedthattheextentofthedamageswasunforeseenandthusheshouldbecoveredunderthe  p  policy. `    ThetrialcourtfoundthatinsuranceagentsactingonbehalfofWesternhadmodifiedthe @  termsoftheoriginalcontractbyendorsingthedemolitionprojectandacceptingadditional 0  premiums.Thecourtreasonedthat,asWesternhadendorsedaprojectwhereallpartiesknew   damageswouldmostlikelyresult,thisendorsementrenderedtermsoftheoriginalcontractdenying  coverageambiguousandunenforceable.Inaddition,thetrialcourtfoundthattheactionsbyMr.  Angusinhisdemolitiondidnotproduceforeseeabledamages.Assuch,thecourtfoundWestern  liableunderitsinsurancepolicyforthedamagescausedbyMr.Angussdemolition.        Theissue,asweperceiveit,isasfollows: p 0  Didthe  trialcourterrinfailingtofindthatthepolicyclearlyexcludedcoverageforthe P actionsofMr.Anguswhichgaverisetothissuit?  p @(#(#    ` Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de  p novo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly,wemaynot ` reversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. P  See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).With @ respecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionof 0 correctness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_,   P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Theinterpretationofawritten ! contractisamatteroflaw,andthus,nopresumptionofcorrectnessinitsinterpretationexists. See "  NSA_DBA_ԀBenefitPlan,Inc.v.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,968S.W.2d791(Tenn.Ct.App. #! 1997). $" @::# PolicyCoverage  p&!$   Theparties'respectiverightsandobligationsaregovernedbytheircontractofinsurance P(#& whosetermsareembodiedinthepolicy.Aswithanyothercontract,ourresponsibilityistogive @)$' effecttotheexpressedintentionoftheparties, _Blaylock_Ԁ&BrownConstruction,Inc.v._AIU_ 0*%( InsuranceCo .,796S.W.2d146,149(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),byconstruingthepolicyfairlyand  +p&) reasonably, _Demontbreun_Ԁv.CNAInsurance.Cos. ,822S.W.2d619,621(Tenn.Ct.App.1991); ,`'*  Dixonv.Gunter ,636S.W.2d437,441(Tenn.Ct.App.1982),andbygivingthepolicy'slanguage  itscommonandordinarymeaning. _Tata_Ԁv._Nichols_ ,848S.W.2d649,650(Tenn.1993); Parker  v.ProvidentLife&AccidentIns.Co. ,582S.W.2d380,383(Tenn.1979).Wearenotatliberty  torewriteaninsurancepolicysimplybecausewedonotfavoritstermsorbecauseitsprovisions  produceharshresults.Intheabsenceoffraud,overreaching,or_unconscionability_,thecourtsmust p giveeffecttoaninsurancepolicyifitslanguageisclearanditsintentcertain. _Quintana_Ԁv. `  TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,774S.W.2d630,632(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).ׄXXԀ _ׄ# X6X _B%# Blackv.AetnaIns. P  Co. ,909S.W.2d1,3(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). P    UponexaminationofMr.Anguss1992generalliabilitypolicy,itisclearfromthelanguage ( x  ofthepolicythatitprovidedcoverageonlyforan occurrence.Inthepolicy,anoccurrenceis d  definedas anaccident,includingcontinuousorrepeatedexposuretoconditions,whichresultsin P  bodilyinjuryorpropertydamageneitherexpectednorintendedfromthestandpointoftheinsured. <  Thepolicyalsoexcludedcoveragefor moving,shoring,underpinning,raisingordemolitionofany (  buildingorstructureorremovalorrebuildingofanystructuralsupport.However,the1993   endorsementalteredthetermsofthegeneralliabilitypolicybyremovingtheexclusionproviding  nocoverageforthedemolitionofbuildings.Theendorsementstates [_i]t_Ԁisagreedthat[the  exceptiontocoverageunderthegeneralliabilitypolicy]doesnotincludebodilyinjuryorproperty  damagearisingoutof...anyoperation,describedinthisendorsement,conductedbyoronbehalf t ofthenamedinsured.DescriptionofPremisesandOperations:WRECKINGOFBUILDINGS.As ` such,itisclearthatMr.Anguswascoveredunderhis1992generalliabilitypolicyasitwasaltered L bythe1993endorsementforthe wreckingofbuildings. 8   However,furtherstudyoftheendorsementrevealsthat,inadditiontochangingthecoverage ` underthegeneralliabilitypolicy,theendorsementalsoincludedthefollowingstatement: Allother L TermsandConditionsof[theoriginalgeneralliability]Policyremainunchanged.Itisthusclear 8 fromtheplainlanguageoftheendorsementthattheendorsement(1)modifiedtheexclusionsofthe $ originalgeneralliabilitypolicytoallowforthedemolitionofbuildingsand(2)maintainedallother  termsandconditionsoftheoriginalpolicy.Wefindnoambiguityinthelanguageofthis  endorsement.TheendorsementclearlyintendedthatMr.Anguscoulddemolishbuildingsandhave  liabilitycoveragefor occurrencesthataroseduringthedemolition.However,theendorsementdid   notalterthegeneralliabilitypolicysexclusionofcoverageforintentionalorexpecteddamages. p!   TheevidenceisundisputedthatMr.Angusintendedtoremovethepartywallduringhis H#! demolitionof_Buddie_sPawnShop.ItisalsoundisputedthatMr.Angusunderstoodthatthevery 4$" actofremovingthiswallwouldmostlikelyresultindamagetotheadjoiningstructure.Thus,the  %p # propertydamagewasexpectedandintendedfromthestandpointofMr.Angus.Bythelanguageof  &\!$ thegeneralliabilitypolicyasreferredtobytheendorsement,anydamagecausedbyanintentional &H"% actcouldnotbean occurrence.Asthedamagewasnotcausedbyanoccurrence,itwasnot '4#& coveredundertheendorsementissuedbyWestern. ( $'   Wefindnoambiguityinthelanguageineithertheendorsementorthepolicy.Thelanguage *%) inbothdocumentsisclear,andtheintentofthepartiesiseasilyascertainable.Assuch,weare +&* requiredtogivetheendorsementitsintendedeffect.ThetrialcourtsfindingthatWesternisliable  forthedamagecausedbyMr.Angussintentionalactionsduringhisdemolitionprojectishereby  reversed.    Conclusion `       Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyreversethetrialcourtsjudgment.Coston 8  appealareassessedagainsttheappellee,HaroldAngus,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmay $ t issueifnecessary.#XXX X6c%#  `    `     h     ___________________________________ ,     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE