ÿWPCÈ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) 0@< D3| B¯ DCÌ AM U*\ † v~Œ vÓ AQÝÆ. 0Dô 0D8 D/| B«˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL,Î(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ŸD D¡¢D£¤¥D¦D§Ó€³B\J#3|x³2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d7Border 1dd* #Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òOctober€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSON̜ـ*ÙßR€$&#A1-j|n` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌW.€M.€BARR€&€COMPANY,€INC.,€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appelleeò òà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Chancery€No.€103661€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCOMMERCIAL€UNION€INSURANCEà à€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€€02A01„9511„CH„00256Ìò òCOMPANIES,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àò òà à)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTY€Ìà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€C.€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLOR€€€€€ÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌCarl€H.€Langschmidt,€Jr.à àà àà àBruce€D.€Brooke€€ÌCannon€F.€Allen€€€à àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àFrank€C.€Bedinger,€III,€Of€CounselÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAtlanta,€Georgia€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àIN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€SP.€J.Ìò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ŒñXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€sought€to€establish€the€existence€and€contents€of€lost€insuranceÏpolicies€allegedly€issued€by€the€defendant€insurance€company.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏpolicies€existed€for€the€years€in€question,€found€the€proof€sufficient€to€determine€the€terms€of€theÏpolicies,€and€found€the€defendant€responsible€for€each€policy.€€We€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€inÏpart.Ìà àAppellee€W.€M.€Barr€&€Company€(ð ðBarrðð)€manufactures€€various€chemicals.€€In€1993,ÏBarr€filed€suit€against€Appellant€Commercial€Union€Insurance€Companies€(ð ðCommercial€Unionðð),Ïalleging€that€Commercial€Union€had€issued€insurance€policies€to€Barr€for€the€period€of€May€23,Ï1964,€through€May€23,€1970.€€Barr€had€in€its€possession€a€Commercial€Union€policy€for€May€23,Ï1969,€through€May€23,€1970,€but€could€not€locate€copies€of€the€policies€for€the€five€previousÏyears.€€In€the€lawsuit,€Barr€sought€to€have€the€trial€court€ð ðset€upðð€the€lost€policies,€that€is,€find€thatÏthe€policies€existed€and€establish€the€terms€of€the€policies,€as€well€as€determine€that€the€policiesÏwere€issued€by€defendant€Commercial€Union.Ìà àThe€1969„70€policy€in€Barrððs€possession€provided€comprehensive€general€liability€coverageÏwith€a€œ$300,000/500,000›€limit.€€Barr€asserted€that€the€lost€policies€had€similar€terms€and€policyÏlimits.€€During€the€years€in€question,€Barr€had€procured€its€insurance€through€an€independentÏagency,€the€Whitfield€King€Insurance€Agency€(ð ðWhitfield€Kingðð).€€One€of€the€owners€of€WhitfieldÏKing,€John€S.€King,€also€owned€a€significant€amount€of€Barr€stock.€€Commercial€Union€deniedÏthat€it€had€issued€any€policies€to€Barr€except€for€the€one€for€1969„70.Ìà àAt€trial,€Jeffrey€Jordan€(ð ðJordanðð),€Barrððs€Director€of€Legal€and€Regulatory€Affairs,Ïtestified€that€he€had€diligently€searched€for€the€lost€policies€but€had€been€unable€to€find€them.€ÏHowever,€he€stated€œthat›€he€found€significant€documentary€evidence€relating€to€their€existence.€€ThisÏevidence€included€invoices€for€the€disputed€policies,€check€vouchers€showing€that€the€policies€hadÏbeen€paid€for,€and€various€audit€and€risk€experience€documents€created€by€Commercial€UnionÏwhich€showed€that€Commercial€Union€had€paid€claims€and€charged€additional€premiums€on€theÏlost€policies.€€In€addition,€Barr€introduced€into€evidence€ð ðspecimenðð€policies,€stipulated€to€beÍCommercial€Unionððs€standard€blank€policies€in€use€during€the€years€in€question.Ìà àGeorge€Conaway€(ð ðConawayðð)€also€testified€at€trial.€€He€had€worked€for€Barr€during€theÏyears€covered€by€the€lost€policies.€€From€1965„66,€he€served€as€General€Sales€Manager;€fromÏ1967„68,€€as€Executive€Vice€President;€and€in€1969€and€1970€as€President.€€As€General€SalesÏManager,€Conaway€had€reason€to€know€the€limits€of€Barrððs€general€liability€insurance€coverage,Ïbut€did€not€know€the€identity€of€the€insurance€carrier€during€that€period.€€Conaway€testified€thatÏBarrððs€general€liability€insurance€coverage€limits€during€1965€and€1966€were€$300,000/$500,000.€ÏConaway€also€testified€that,€while€he€was€Executive€Vice€President€and€President,€€hisÏresponsibilities€included€reviewing€Barrððs€insurance€coverage€for€approval.€€Consequently,€for€theÏyears€of€1967„70,€he€had€personal€knowledge€that€Barrððs€insurance€was€placed€with€CommercialÏUnion,€as€brokered€by€Whitfield€King,€and€that€the€coverage€included€comprehensive€generalÏliability€with€limits€of€$300,000/500,000.Ìà àAnother€witness€called€by€Barr€was€Lee€Quarles€(ð ðQuarlesðð).€€Quarles€had€been€anÏinsurance€agent€with€Whitfield€King€from€June€of€1964€until€1969.€€He€testified€that€he€had€beenÏthe€agent€who€handled€the€Barr€account€and€that€he€had€seen€the€policies€in€question.€€He€statedÏthat€from€May€1965€until€May€1969,€Barr€had€comprehensive€general€liability€coverage€withÏCommercial€Union€and€that€the€limits€on€those€policies€had€been€$300,000/500,000.€€Ìà àDoris€Goodman€(ð ðGoodmanðð)€testified€that,€starting€in€1976,€she€had€worked€at€Barr€asÏsecretary€to€the€Vice€President.€€She€stated€that,€in€late€1976€or€early€1977,€she€prepared€a€logÏlisting€Barrððs€insurance€policies€for€the€years€in€question.€€While€preparing€the€log,€she€used€theÏpolicies€as€a€reference.€€She€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€policies€at€issue,€that€each€had€a€term€ofÏa€year,€€and€that€the€policies€had€been€issued€by€Commercial€Union.Ìà àFinally,€Gene€Mathis€(ð ðMathisðð)€testified€on€Barrððs€behalf€as€an€expert€in€general€liabilityÏinsurance.€€He€had€examined€the€documents€Barr€had,€as€well€as€the€generic€specimen€forms€used€Ïby€Commercial€Union€during€the€years€in€question.€€From€his€review€of€these€documents,€MathisÏtestified€that€he€was€certain€that€Commercial€Union€had€issued€insurance€policies€to€Barr€for€theÍdisputed€years,€that€Barr€had€paid€the€premiums,€and€that€the€policies€had€included€comprehensiveÏgeneral€liability€coverage€with€a€$300,000/500,000€limit.€€Furthermore,€he€testified€that€the€auditÏand€risk€experience€documents€compiled€by€Commercial€Union€showed€that€Commercial€UnionÏhad€paid€claims€on€the€disputed€policies€and€charged€additional€premiums.Ìà àThe€evidence€regarding€the€alleged€lost€policy€for€May€1964€through€May€1965€was€moreÏsparse.€€The€Whitfield€King€invoice€for€that€year€listed€the€insuring€company€as€Central€SuretyÏInsurance€Company€(ð ðCentral€Suretyðð),€not€Commercial€Union.€€However,€a€multi„page€audit€forÏthat€year,€while€listing€the€insurer€as€Central€Surety,€was€recorded€on€a€form€with€CommercialÏUnionððs€name€pre„printed€at€the€top€of€each€page.€€Mathis€testified€that€this€form€was€evidence€thatÏthe€two€companies€were€affiliated,€reasoning€that€one€insurance€company€would€not€use€anotherÏcompanyððs€form€to€record€an€audit€unless€the€two€companies€were€related.€€Mathis€also€testifiedÏthat€the€numbering€sequence€on€the€1964„65€policy€number€was€so€similar€to€the€sequence€onÏCommercial€Unionððs€policies€that€the€two€companies€had€to€be€related.€€Finally,€he€testified€that€theÏ1965„66€policy€was€a€renewal€policy€and€that€Commercial€Union€would€not€have€renewed€aÏCentral€Surety€policy€unless€the€two€companies€were€affiliated.Ìà àCommercial€Union€elected€not€to€put€on€any€proof.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Barr€hadÏproven€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€Commercial€Union€had€issued€the€disputed€policiesÏfor€the€years€of€1965„69.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€sufficient€evidence€had€been€presented€toÏhold€Commercial€Union€responsible€for€the€1964„65€policy€issued€by€Central€Surety.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€lost€policies€provided€coverage€with€a€limit€for€each€policy€of€ð ð$300,000€perÏperson€and€$500,000€per€occurrence€(and€$500,000€in€the€aggregate€for€comprehensive€generalÏliability)€with€property€damage€limits€of€$25,000€each€occurrence€and€$25,000€in€the€aggregate.ðð€ÏThe€trial€court€found€further€that€the€remaining€terms€of€the€policies€were€contained€in€otherÏdocuments€in€evidence.€The€trial€courtððs€oral€ruling€indicated€that€Commercial€Unionððs€failure€toÏpresent€€proof€had€weighed€against€it.€€From€this€decision,€Commercial€Union€now€appeals.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Commercial€Union€raises€three€issues.€€First,€it€argues€that€the€evidenceÍpresented€by€Barr€did€not€meet€the€standard€of€clear,€cogent,€and€convincing€evidence,€the€standardÏit€asserts€is€required€to€prove€the€existence€and€terms€of€lost€insurance€policies.€€Second,ÏCommercial€Union€€contends€that€Barr€failed€to€present€proof€of€a€relationship€betweenÏCommercial€Union€and€Central€Surety€sufficient€to€make€Commercial€Union€liable€for€CentralÏSuretyððs€1964„65€policy.€€Finally,€Commercial€Union€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€drawing€aÏnegative€inference€from€its€decision€to€put€on€no€proof.Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóóÏupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€13(d).̜Ǜà àCommercial€Union€first€contends€that€Barr€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€prove€theÏexistence€of€the€disputed€policies€and€their€contents.€€Barr€argues€that€the€standard€to€prove€a€lostÏpolicy€is€a€€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Commercial€Union€contends€that€the€standard€is€aÏhigher€one,€that€Barr€must€present€clear,€cogent,€and€convincing€evidence.€€We€have€found€noÏTennessee€cases€on€point€on€this€issue.€€However,€in€general€in€Tennessee,€evidence€of€a€lostÏdocument€must€be€clear€and€convincing.€€òòò òSee€Pearson€v.€McCallumó óóó,€26€Tenn.€App.€413,Ï433„34,€173€S.W.2d€150,€158€(1941)€(ð ðAs€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€law€requires€thatÏthe€evidence€offered€to€prove€by€parol€the€execution€and€the€contents€of€a€written€instrument€whichÏis€not€produced€shall€be€of€the€most€satisfactory€character,€or€what€is€known€as€clear,€cogent€andÏconvincing€evidence.ðð).€€We€find€this€to€be€the€applicable€standard.€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€Barr€presented€more€than€one€witness€who€testified€that€he€had€seen€theÏpolicies€in€question.€€The€Whitfield€King€agent€responsible€for€Barrððs€insurance€testified€that€heÏremembered€that€Commercial€Union€had€been€the€insurer,€that€the€policies€had€includedÏcomprehensive€general€coverage,€and€that€the€limits€had€been€$300,000/500,000.€ò ò€€ó óConawayÏtestified€that€from€1965„66,€he€had€knowledge€of€the€policy€limits,€$300,000/500,000,€and€thatÏfrom€1967„70,€he€had€personal€knowledge€of€the€Commercial€Union€policies€for€Barr.€€GoodmanÏalso€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€policies.€€In€addition,€Barr€introduced€documentary€evidence€ofÏthe€existence€of€the€policies.€€Whitfield€King€invoices€were€introduced€into€evidence€which€listedÏCommercial€Union€as€the€insurer.€€Barr€also€introduced€check€vouchers€with€amounts€matching€theÏinvoices,€evidence€that€the€policy€premiums€were€paid.€€Finally,€Barr€introduced€CommercialÏUnion€audits€demonstrating€that€Commercial€Union€had€audited€Barr€for€the€policies€in€question,Ïhad€paid€for€losses€on€the€policies,€and€had€charged€additional€premiums€for€the€policies.€€TheÏevidence€is€clear€and€convincing€that€the€policies€existed€and€that,€except€for€the€years€1964„65,ÏCommercial€Union€issued€the€policies.€€Moreover,€the€testimony€and€documents,€when€combinedÏwith€the€specimen€forms€supplied€by€Commercial€Union€and€the€1969„70€policy€still€in€BarrððsÏpossession,€are€sufficient€to€establish€the€terms€of€the€missing€policies.€€Therefore,€we€find€thatÍBarr€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€the€existence€of€the€lost€Commercial€UnionÏpolicies€for€the€years€1965„69,€as€well€as€their€terms.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€as€to€theÏpolicies€for€the€years€1965„69€is€affirmed.€€ÌœÇ›à àCommercial€Union€also€asserts€that€Barr€failed€to€present€sufficient€proof€to€hold€ÏCommercial€Union€liable€for€the€1964„65€policy,€issued€by€Central€Surety.€€Commercial€Union€Ïcontends€further€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€drawing€a€negative€inference€from€Commercial€UnionððsÏfailure€to€present€proof.€€Ìà àThe€only€evidence€that€Commercial€Union€should€be€held€liable€for€the€1964„65€CentralÏSurety€policy€is€the€testimony€of€Mathis,€Barrððs€insurance€expert.€€He€testified€that€a€Central€SuretyÏaudit€on€a€Commercial€Union€form,€the€similarity€in€number€sequences€between€the€Central€SuretyÏpolicy€and€the€Commercial€Union€policies,€and€an€apparent€renewal€of€the€Central€Surety€policy€byÏCommercial€Union€support€the€theory€that€Commercial€Union€should€be€liable€for€the€CentralÏSurety€policy.€€Even€the€trial€court€characterized€this€evidence€as€ð ðmeager.ðð€€Nevertheless,€it€foundÏCommercial€Union€liable€for€the€1964„65€policy.€€Commercial€Union€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏdrew€a€negative€inference€against€it€for€not€putting€on€any€proof.€€€When€asked€by€CommercialÏUnion€if€its€ruling€finding€Commercial€Union€liable€for€the€lost€policies€included€the€Central€SuretyÏpolicy,€the€trial€court€responded:ÌÓÓà8 àà àWell,€again,€theyððre€„„€well,€the€meager€proof€on€that€was€that€they€wereÏreally€one€in€the€same,€and€thereððs€been€no€attempt,€absolutely€no€shred€of€„„€well,Ïnot€even€an€argument€that€they€are€not.€€So€the€Court€will€œinclude›€that,€yes.ÌÌÓÓà àUnder€certain€circumstances,€a€negative€inference€may€properly€be€drawn€from€aÏdefendantððs€decision€not€to€put€on€proof:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€purpose€of€judicial€proceedings€is€to€establish€the€facts€and€the€issues€in€disputeÏand€apply€the€law€to€such€facts.€€If€the€proof€of€plaintiff€tends€to€establish€suchÏfacts,€and€defendant,€through€his€own€knowledge€or€through€the€knowledge€ofÏwitnesses€peculiarly€within€his€keeping,€may€fully€disclose€to€the€court€all€the€factsÏand€fails€to€do€so,€there€is€a€strong€presumption€that€such€facts€are€adverse€to€hisÏinterests€and€contentions.€€We€do€not€hold€that€the€failure€of€a€defendant€to€produceÏsuch€witnesses€would€take€the€place€of€the€proof€which€plaintiff€must€introduce€toÏmake€out€his€case.€€But€the€inferences€favorable€to€the€contentions€of€plaintiff€areÏstrengthened€and€supported€by€the€failure€of€defendant€and€the€witnesses€peculiarlyÏin€his€keeping€to€testify€when€they€know€all€the€facts.ÌÌÓÓò òòòMarable€v.€State€ex€rel.€Wackernieóóó ó,€32€Tenn.€App.€238,€246„47,€222€S.W.2d€234,€238Ï(1949).€€In€the€instant€case,€any€adverse€inference€drawn€from€Commercial€Unionððs€decision€not€toÍput€on€evidence€is€immaterial€because€Barr€clearly€did€not€produce€sufficient€evidence€to€ð ðmake€outÏhis€caseðð€as€to€the€1964„65€Central€Surety€policy.€€Barr€failed€to€meet€the€clear€and€convincingÏstandard€as€to€this€œpolicy.›€€ÌœÇ›à àAny€negative€inference€drawn€by€the€trial€court€as€to€the€1965„69€policies€is€also€immaterial€Ïbecause,€as€noted€above,€€Barr€presented€sufficient€proof€to€establish€the€policies,€their€terms€andÏconditions,€and€the€fact€that€they€were€issued€by€Commercial€Union,€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.€€Ìà àIn€sum,€we€affirm€the€trial€court€regarding€each€of€the€policies€for€the€period€of€May€1965Ïthrough€May€1969.€€We€reverse,€however,€as€to€the€œMay›€œ1964„May›€1965€policy,€findingÏinsufficient€evidence€that€Commercial€Union€should€be€held€liable€for€the€policy€issued€by€CentralÏSurety.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part,€as€set€forth€above.€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€equally€against€Appellant€and€Appellee,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.€€€€€€€ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€SP.€J.ó ó