ÿWPCã  mtrHRBÒs²#¦e•>Û½˜ÀÐ % ]‚âÒퟀåf›H«¯FÙ—–눇ð˜ d±dŒ kÀЉÑ!6¯|ä'71 Ê^T‹G=|ZÙ£ŠdÉÂÎì…Pó£h~8‘Ku]w€µhOÞ}õÒ>XsND>Žrˆ $¹jÓ¸>; OüYºl{.âQ¶¶ÄEO"èõê[Fâ‹ 8[£¬`s‹{¡ž{H7…Ož6ïëáÊ1|œÙ[´å|Þ6ó#-éâ©xÕiÇy.Hßér±L”xƦßRâ YðnãªäŽÿÀ…°)J (ß»×vp爟7{#]XÔ¾àÐàh´ýúÒðMõ’ç/|”·R5ÿqÛñ@ݯÜe{¼00”gù×\$LâÔ4ÉB¶?eãx•¥:öšØ1v}ðçZ/+^T³ëêÿ¥=YºÎàCˆDâ ˆwwŠ’ù”¯éÏI9–Þ Ú7µ³w3ý$÷£$k”åmÆGÚS¥qž—QŠC¤Cw^?¶‘û&+ÞgUB+ÑûƒÒå©“—ãMt˜•¨›Ù5èÈ…ÈD“ô¬©ý*Á \†;`L¬¹zö_`R,o)znCÿÓ|²”+зm¬XÀÀz¦" `…# F U>Q % 0¿• UHT w@œ 4Ü ð ÿ UH dïjU:Y“ 0° 0D³k÷U:b œœ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ D3ªªª 0DÝ B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AO>Æ 0DS D/— BƘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLDÒ<è\( 9Z &Courier RegularX(—x$¡¡Ô€X]­XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular %Ó€&£'D()*D+D, U-E.Ó€w€#%3|x8 Ý ƒ¨º$ÝÔ€ X]­XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòT.C.A.€ðð€56„7„1201,€by€its€own€terms,€applies€only€to€policies€delivered,Ð `  Ðissued€for€delivery€or€renewed€in€this€state€...€.óó<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularÈ åÔ€ XúXXXÔÔ€ èï}èX XúÔÔ Ad ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€ 2õè èï}ÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€23,€1998Ð  ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€CourtÏClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒjº$ÝÔ€X-îXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòT.C.A.€ðð€56„7„1201,€by€its€own€terms,€applies€only€to€policies€delivered,Ð `  Ðissued€for€delivery€or€renewed€in€this€state€...€.óó(³(3/$¤¤Ý ƒx!ÝÔ€X™˜XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø'$Avery 8162 Addressÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó aÝ ƒjº$ÝÔ€X-îXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòT.C.A.€ðð€56„7„1201€(a)(3)€was€amended€effective€July€1,€1996€to€provided€thatÐ `  Ðuninsured€or€underinsured€motorist€coverage€need€not€be€provided€in€this€state€by€anÏexcess€or€umbrella€policy€of€insurance.óó<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiH....'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒx!ÝÔ€XyXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø'$Avery 8162 Addressÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýñ.ñ›ñ.ñÑ4°ÑÑ` °ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ LegalXà3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø'$Avery 8162 AddressTÑÑ  ÑÑ7€yXXdÈdÈ7Ññ.ñßl€ *6&"h 8 `€€Ef tt06H` ¨ìlߛ⠰H°H°(#°(#âñ.ñ€€€à@  |àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSˆÐ `  Ðà@¬ ¬ |àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓJAMES€M.€BEAM€and€JOYCE€A.€BEAM,€€€)€Knox€ChanceryÌIndividually€and€as€Nextà h àà À àà  à)€C.A.€No.Ð  @ Ðâ °(#°(#°H°Hâ03A01„9802„CH„00055Ìof€Kin€ofà ` àKAREN€H.€BEAM,€Deceased,à  à)Ð 0Ð  Ðand€Next€Friend€of€LANCE€B.€BEAM,€à  à)Ð ø˜  ÐA€Minor,à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð À`  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ Pð  Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiffs„Appellees€à  à)Ð ¸  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€HON.€FREDERICK€D.€MCDONALDÌvs.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€CHANCELLORÐ p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌUNITED€SERVICES€AUTOMOBILE€à À àà  à)Ð Èh ÐASSOCIATION,€and/or€USAA€CASUALTYà  à)Ð 0 ÐINSURANCE€COMPANY,€and/or€USAA€à  à)Ð Xø ÐGENERAL€INDEMNITY€COMPANY,à À àà  à)Ð  À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,Ìà  àà ` àDefendants„Appellants€à  à)€REVERSED€IN€PART€ANDà Ð àÐ x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€)€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌFRANCIS€A.€CAIN€and€BEVERLY€DEAN€œNELMS›,€œFrantz›,€œMcConnell›,€&ÏœSeymour›,€œLLP›,€Knoxville,€for€Appellants.ÌÌÌMARK€E.€FLOYD,€œPryor›,€Flynn,€Priest€&€œHarber›,€Knoxville,€forÏAppellees.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ h) ) ÐÌÌÓ  ÓMcMurray,€J.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà  àThis€appeal€involves€the€determination€of€whether€there€isÏinsurance€coverage€on€three€separate€insurance€policies€ð"ð€twoÏautomobile€policies€and€a€personal€umbrella€policy.€€The€plain…¼tiffs,€James€and€Joyce€Beam,€had€purchased€insurance€coverage€fromÏthe€defendant,€United€Services€Automobile€Association€(USAA).€€TheÏplaintiffs,€whose€daughter€was€killed€in€an€automobile€accident,Ïfiled€a€declaratory€action€against€USAA€seeking€a€judgment€as€toÐ x7.; Ðwhether€uninsured€motorist€(UM)€coverage€was€included€under€theirÐ @8à.< Ðpersonal€umbrella€policy€and€whether€USAA€had€acted€in€"bad€faith"Ïby€denying€coverage.€€In€its€answer,€USAA€denied€that€the€plain…¼tiffs€could€recover€under€both€automobile€policies€and€under€theirÏpersonal€umbrella€policy.€€With€court€approval,€the€plaintiffsÏamended€their€complaint€to€allege€that€the€two€automobile€policiesÏcould€be€"stacked,"€thereby€allowing€them€a€greater€recovery.€€ÌÌà  àEach€party€filed€a€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€theÏissue€of€"stacking"€the€UM€coverage.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏpartial€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Beams€on€the€issue€ofÏstacking.€€One€month€later,€the€second€issue,€regarding€umbrella€UMÏcoverage,€was€heard€by€the€trial€court€without€a€jury.€€Again,€theÏtrial€court€ruled€in€favor€of€the€Beams,€holding€that€they€did€haveÏUM€coverage€under€their€personal€umbrella€policy€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident.€€USAA€now€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€as€to€the€automobile€policies€and€reverse€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€as€to€the€umbrella€policy.ÌÌà  àUSAA€presents€two€issues€for€our€consideration:ÌÌÓÓà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  à1.à ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grantÐ  (@( Ðsummary€judgment€to€it€on€the€issue€of€"stacked"Ïuninsured/underinsured€motorist€coverage;€andÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  à2.à ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€UM€€cover…Ð À+`", Ðage€under€the€Beams'€personal€umbrella€€policy€evenÏthough€James€Beam€signed€a€form€rejecting€UM€cover…¼age.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌà  àThe€Beams€had€three€insurance€policies€with€USAA€at€the€timeÏof€the€accident.€€First,€the€Tennessee€automobile€policy,€numberÏ00122€83€80U€7105€0,€provided€for€UM€coverage€bodily€limits€ofÏ$300,000€per€person€and€$500,000€per€accident.€€This€policy€insuredÐ è5ˆ,9 Ðthree€vehicles:€a€1989€Volvo,€a€1989€Pontiac,€and€a€1996€ChevroletÏCamaro.€€Second,€the€Pennsylvania€automobile€policy,€number€00122Ï83€ññœññ80Uññ›ññ€7104€0,€provided€for€UM€and€underinsured€motorist€bodilyÏinjury€limits€of€$300,000€per€person€and€$500,000€per€accident,€asÏwell€as€providing€for€"stacked"€coverage.€€The€PennsylvaniaÏautomobile€policy€insured€one€vehicle,€a€1979€Volvo,€that€wasÏgaraged€in€Pennsylvania.€€Mr.€Beam,€an€airline€pilot,€used€thatÏvehicle€in€Pennsylvania€whenever€he€flew€there.€€Third,€theÏTennessee€umbrella€policy,€number€00122€83€80€ññœññññœññ70Uññ›ññññ›ññ,€provided€for€upÏto€$5€million€in€coverage.ÌÌà  àIn€1993,€the€Beams€moved€from€Pittsburgh,€œPennsylvaniaññ,ññ›€toÏKnoxville,€Tennessee.€€In€early€March€1994,€after€the€Beams'€moveÏto€Knoxville,€USAA€sent€the€Beams€a€UM€rejection€form€for€theirÏpersonal€umbrella€policy.€€This€rejection€form€was€sent€approxi…Ð p5,/ Ðmately€two€months€before€the€time€for€the€renewal€of€the€policy.€ÏOn€March€21,€1994,€a€USAA€service€representative€spoke€by€telephoneÏto€Mrs.€Beam€and€told€her€that€the€Tennessee€umbrella€UM€rejectionÏform€had€been€mailed.€€Mrs.€Beam€indicated€that€she€would€discussÏthe€matter€with€her€husband.ÌÌà  àOn€April€4,€1994,€approximately€one€month€after€the€umbrellaÏUM€rejection€form€was€mailed€to€James€Beam,€USAA€had€not€receivedÏa€response€from€the€Beams.€€Therefore,€under€Tennessee€law,€theÏumbrella€policy€was€renewed€to€include€UM€coverage.€€On€April€5,Ï1994,€James€Beam€called€USAA€to€inquire€about€the€UM€coverage€underÏhis€umbrella€policy€and€about€the€premium€for€the€coverage.€ÏAccording€to€the€computer€documentation€prepared€by€the€USAAÏservice€representative€at€the€time€of€the€conversation,€Mr.€BeamÏindicated€that€he€would€probably€return€the€umbrella€UM€rejectionÏform:€"He€said€he€will€probably€return€form€ð"ð€I€said€I€will€holdÏtransaction€until€renewal€ð"ð€If€form€recd€ð"ð€no€action€ð"ð€If€not,€willÏadd€UM€5€million€to€ññœññññœññumbññ›ññññ›ññ€renewal."€ÌÌà  àMr.€Beam€signed€the€rejection€form€for€UM€coverage€under€hisÏpersonal€umbrella€policy€on€April€1,€1994.€€Although€the€umbrellaÏpolicy,€including€the€UM€coverage,€had€already€been€renewed,€theÏpolicy€was€amended€to€exclude€the€umbrella€UM€coverage€once€USAAÏreceived€the€UM€rejection€form,€and€the€Beams€received€a€credit€ofÏ$144.90€to€their€account€for€the€umbrella€UM€coverage.Ð `6-0 Їà  àIn€January€1996,€Mr.€Beam€purchased€a€1996€Camaro€for€hisÏdaughter€Karen€who€turned€sixteen€the€following€month€and€addedÏthis€car€to€his€existing€Tennessee€automobile€insurance€policyÏthrough€USAA.€€In€February€1996,€Karen€Beam€turned€sixteen,€and€sheÏtoo€was€added€to€the€Beams'€Tennessee€automobile€policy.€€OnÏSeptember€9,€1996,€Karen€Beam€was€driving€the€Camaro€when€it€wasÏstruck€€by€a€vehicle€driven€by€Karen€Pappas.€Karen€Beam€was€killed,Ïand€Lance€Beam,€a€passenger€in€the€Camaro,€was€injured.ÌÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Beams€filed€a€negligence€action€against€Karen€Pappas.€€Ms.ÏPappas€had€bodily€injury€limits€of€$25,000€per€person€and€$50,000Ïper€accident€under€her€liability€insurance€policy€with€Horace€MannÏInsurance€Company.€€Although€Horace€Mann€indicated€to€the€BeamsÏthat€it€would€pay€its€full€policy€limits€of€$50,000€to€them,€theyÏcontend€that€the€coverages€under€Pappas'€insurance€and€the€UMÏcoverages€on€their€two€automobile€policies€will€not€compensate€themÏfor€all€the€damages€as€a€result€of€the€accident.€€Therefore,€theyÏseek€to€collect€under€the€UM€provision€of€their€umbrella€policy.ÌÌà  àWe€address€first€the€issue€of€whether€the€UM€coverage€providedÏby€the€Pennsylvania€automobile€policy€can€be€"stacked"€onto€the€UMÏcoverage€provided€by€the€Tennessee€automobile€policy,€therebyÏallowing€the€Beams€a€greater€recovery.€€USAA€contends€that€theÏlegislative€intent€of€the€UM€statute€in€Tennessee€is€that€stackingÏof€ññœññcoverages€isññ›ññ€ññœññnot€permitted.ññ›ññÐ `6-0 ЀÌÓÓà8  àà ` àòòMinimum€policy€limits€not€increasedóó.€ð"ð€NothingÐ @ à Ðcontained€in€this€part€shall€be€construed€as€requiringÏthe€forms€of€coverage€provided€pursuant€to€this€part,Ïwhether€alone€or€in€combination€with€similar€coverageÏafforded€under€other€automobile€liability€policies,€toÏafford€limits€in€excess€of€those€that€would€be€affordedÏhad€the€insured€thereunder€been€involved€in€an€accidentÏwith€a€motorist€who€was€insured€under€a€policy€ofÏliability€insurance€with€the€minimum€limits€described€inÏðð€55„12„107,€or€the€uninsured€motorist€liability€limitsÏof€the€insured's€policy€if€such€limits€are€higher€thanÏthe€limits€described€in€ðð€55„12„107.€€Such€forms€ofÏcoverage€may€include€such€terms,€exclusions,€limitations,Ïconditions,€and€offsets,€which€are€designed€to€avoidÏduplication€of€insurance,€and€other€benefits.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓì'ÓÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„1205€(1994).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà  àMoreover,€USAA€argues€that€our€Supreme€Court€and€this€Court€Ìhave€interpreted€this€statute€to€mean€that€the€stacking€orÏduplication€of€automobile€insurance€coverages€is€not€permitted€inÏTennessee,€citing€òòState€Automobile€Mutual€Ins.€Co.€v.€Cummingsóó,€519Ð  #@ ÐS.W.2d€773€(Tenn.€1975)€and€òòJones€v.€ññœññññœññMulkeyññ›ññññ›ññóó,€620€S.W.2d€498€(Tenn.Ð €%  ÐApp.€1981).€ÌÌà  àThe€Beams€argue€that€the€Pennsylvania€automobile€policyÏprovides€"stacked"€UM€coverage€on€its€face,€and€thus,€they€areÏentitled€to€recover€under€the€UM€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€policyÏas€well€as€the€Pennsylvania€policy.€€The€plaintiffs€assert€thatÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€56„7„1205€"does€not€prohibit€anÏinsurance€company€from€expressly€providing€broader€coverage€thanÏmay€be€required."€€Specifically,€they€point€to€the€PennsylvaniaÐ `6-0 Ðautomobile€policy€which€provides€for€stacked€coverages.€€The€BeamsÏargue€that€following€the€accident€USAA€notified€them€in€writingÏthat€the€coverage€under€the€Pennsylvania€automobile€policy€could€beÏ"stacked"€onto€the€UM€coverage€under€the€Tennessee€automobileÏpolicy.ÌÌà  àAs€USAA€notes€in€its€brief,€the€trial€court€in€making€itsÏdecision€regarding€the€stacking€of€coverages€relies€on€aÏstipulation€between€the€parties€that€an€additional€amount€in€theÏBeams'€premium€was€charged€for€stacked€coverage€under€theÏPennsylvania€automobile€ññœññpolicy.€ññ›ññ€However,€at€trial€it€wasÏdiscovered€that€because€the€Beams€had€only€one€vehicle€coveredÏunder€the€Pennsylvania€automobile€policy,€they€had€not€been€chargedÏan€additional€amount€in€their€premium€for€stacked€coverage.€€USAAÏasserts€that€whether€there€was€a€premium€differential€is€irrelevantÏbecause€under€Tennessee€law,€the€stacking€of€insurance€coverages€isÏnot€permissible.ÌÌà  àIn€our€analysis€of€this€issue,€we€will€first€look€to€theÏTennessee€UM€statute€and€the€case€law€that€interprets€that€statute.€ÏFirst,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€56„7„1205€indicates€on€its€faceÏan€intent€to€guarantee€coverage€only€within€certain€limits.€€InÏinterpreting€this€statute,€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòCummingsóó€noted€thatÐ  2@), Ðthe€UM€statute€"evinces€a€legislative€purpose€to€provide€recoveryÏonly€up€to€the€minimum€statutory€limit."€òòCummingsóó,€519€S.W.2d€atÐ `6-0 Ð775.€€Like€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòCummingsóó,€this€Court€in€òòJones€v.Ð `  ÐññœññññœññMulkeyññ›ññññ›ññóó,€620€S.W.2d€498€(Tenn.€App.€1981),€felt€bound€by€the€statuteÐ @ à Ðin€its€ruling€that€stacking€of€coverages€is€not€permissible.€€WeÏtoo€are€bound€by€the€statute€in€this€cases€involving€policiesÏissued€in€Tennessee€and€subject€to€interpretation€under€TennesseeÏLaw.ññ׃×ññññ׃ ×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€are€not€required€to€apply€Tennessee€Law,€however,€to€aÐ À`  Ðpolicy€issued€in€Pennsylvania€and€subject€to€interpretation€underÏthe€laws€of€Pennsylvania.€€We€are€at€liberty€to€apply€PennsylvaniaÏlaw€unless€it€is€in€conflict€with€the€public€policy€of€this€state.€ÏIn€Pennsylvania,€"stacking"€is€permitted€and€it€is€expresslyÏprovided€in€the€Pennsylvania€policy€that€the€coverage€may€beÏññœññstacked.ññ›ññ€€As€we€have€previously€noted,€the€public€policy€in€thisÏstate€as€established€by€the€legislature€"evinces€a€legislativeÏpurpose€to€provide€recovery€only€up€to€the€minimum€statutoryÏlimit."€€This€is€not€to€say,€however,€that€public€policy€prohibitsÏparties€from€contracting€for€insurance€in€excess€of€the€minimumÏstatutory€limit.€€It€appears€that€our€public€policy€is€directedÏtoward€a€duplication€of€benefits€or€a€"double€recovery."€€òòSeeóóÐ @)à" ÐT.C.A.€ðð€56„7„1205.€€€Hence,€since€there€is€quite€obviously€no€roomÏfor€a€"double€recovery"€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€it€is€not€in€conflict€with€out€public€policy€to€enforce€theÏprovisions€of€the€Pennsylvania€insurance€policy€which€allowÏstacking.€€"All€through€the€legal€history€of€our€State€the€courtsÐ  2@), Ðhave€had€not€only€the€power€but€are€constantly€enforcing€rights€ofÏactions€arising€under€the€laws€of€another€state€which€require€theÏascertainment€and€application€of€the€law€of€the€foreign€state,€andÏthis€we€have€done€even€when€the€law€of€the€foreign€state€beÏdifferent€from€our€own.€€The€only€exception€being€where€the€law€ofÏthe€foreign€state€be€against€the€public€policy€of€our€State.€òòSeeóóÐ À`  ÐòòWhitlow€v.€N.C.€&€St.€L.€ññœññññœññRyññ›ññññ›ññ.€Co.óó,€114€Tenn.€344,€357,€84€S.W.€618,Ð  @  Ð68€ññœññññœññL.R.A.ññ›ññññ›ññ€503€(1904)."€€òòññœññññœññZurickññ›ññññ›ññ€v.€Inmanóó,€221€Tenn.€393,€426€S.W.2dÐ €  Ð767€(Tenn.€ññœññ1968).ÌÌà  àUnder€Pennsylvania€law,€stacking€is€expressly€permitted.€ÏPennsylvania's€Motor€Vehicle€Financial€Responsibility€law€providesÏas€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8  àðð1738.€€òòStacking€of€Uninsured€and€Underinsured€BenefitsÐ  #@ Ðand€Option€to€Waiveóó.Ð$0Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(a)à ¸ àòòLimit€For€Each€Vehicleóó€ð"ð€When€more€than€one€(1)Ð p& Ðvehicle€is€insured€under€one€or€more€policies€providingÏuninsured€or€underinsured€motorist€coverage,€the€statedÏlimit€for€uninsured€or€underinsured€coverage€shall€applyÏseparately€to€each€vehicle€so€insured.€€òòThe€limits€ofÐ 0*Ð # Ðcoverages€available€under€this€subchapter€for€an€insuredÏshall€be€the€sum€of€the€limits€for€each€motor€vehicle€asÏto€which€the€injured€person€is€an€insuredóó.€€(EmphasisÐ - #& Ðadded).Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌà  àFurther,€the€courts€of€Pennsylvania€have€expressly€approvedÏâ âstacking€of€coverage€to€the€limits€of€coverage€or€to€the€extent€ofÐ 30*- Ðthe€insured's€damages,€ññwheverññññwhicheverññ€is€less.€€òòSeeóó€òòññœññHarleysvilleññ›ññ€ññœññMutññ›ññ.Ð `  ÐññœññCasññ›ññ.€Co.€v.€ññœññBlumlingññ›ññóó,€241€A.2d€112€(Pa.€1968).à  àÐ @ à Ðâ âÌà  àWe,ññ›ññ€therefore,€find€no€error€in€the€trial€court's€judgmentÏallowing€stacking€of€the€Pennsylvania€ññœññpolicy€and€the€TennesseeÏautomobile€policy.ññ›ññÌà  àÌà  àWe€turn€now€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€Beams€had€UM€coverageÏunder€their€personal€umbrella€policy.€€USAA€contends€that€JamesÏBeam€rejected€UM€coverage€on€his€umbrella€policy€on€April€1,€1994.€ÏIt€further€asserts€that€once€UM€coverage€has€been€rejected€by€anÏinsured,€such€coverage€cannot€be€added€until€the€insurer€isÏnotified€in€writing€of€the€desire€to€add€the€coverage.€€USAA€arguesÏthat€Mr.€Beam€never€requested€that€UM€coverage€be€added€to€hisÏpersonal€umbrella€policy€after€having€rejected€the€coverage.€ÏTherefore,€USAA€maintains€that€when€the€Beams'€daughter€was€killedÏon€September€9,€1996,€the€Beams€did€not€have€UM€coverage€underÏtheir€personal€umbrella€policy€because€Mr.€Beam€had€rejected€suchÏcoverage€in€April€1994.ÌÌà  àIn€support€of€its€argument,€USAA€relies€on€the€followingÏprovision€of€the€Tennessee€UM€statute:€€ÌÌÓÓà8  àHowever,€any€named€insured€may€reject€in€writing€suchÏuninsured€motorist€coverage€completely€or€select€lowerÏlimits€of€such€coverage€but€not€less€than€the€minimumÐ `6-0 Ðcoverage€limits€in€ðð€55„12„107.€€Any€document€signed€byÏthe€named€insured€or€legal€representative€which€initiallyÏrejects€such€coverage€or€selects€lower€limits€shall€beÏbinding€upon€every€insured€to€whom€such€policy€applies,Ïand€shall€be€conclusively€presumed€to€become€a€part€ofÏthe€policy€or€contract€when€issued€or€delivered,Ïirrespective€of€whether€physically€attached€thereto.€ÏUnless€the€named€insured€subsequently€requests€suchÏcoverage€in€writing,€the€rejected€coverage€need€not€beÏincluded€in€or€supplemental€to€any€continuation,€renewal,€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àreinstatement,€or€replacement€of€such€policy,€or€theÏtransfer€of€vehicles€insured€thereunder,€where€the€à @ð ànamedÏinsured€had€rejected€the€coverage€in€connection€with€aÏpolicy€previously€issued€by€the€same€insurer;€provided,Ïthat€whenever€a€new€application€is€submitted€inÏconnection€with€any€renewal,€reinstatement€or€replacementÏtransaction,€the€provisions€of€this€section€shall€applyÏin€the€same€manner€as€when€a€new€policyà È àis€being€issued.ÐPðÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„1201(a)(2)€(Supp.€1997).Ì€€Ìà  àUSAA€contends€that€"[ññœññññœññt]heññ›ññññ›ññ€umbrella€policy€was€maintained€fromÏ1986€through€the€time€of€the€accident€under€policy€number€00122€83Ï80€ññœññññœññ70Uññ›ññññ›ññ€and€was€simply€renewed€year€after€year."€€It€further€arguesÏthat€after€Mr.€Beam€signed€the€UM€rejection€form€in€1994,€no€newÏapplication€for€umbrella€insurance€was€ever€submitted.€€Also,€itÏnotes€that€the€Beams€received€an€adjustment€of€$144.90€on€theirÏbilling€statement€when€Mr.€Beam€rejected€UM€coverage.ÌÌà  àThe€Beams€argue€that€the€addition€of€the€1996€Camaro€inÏJanuary€1996€and€the€addition€of€Karen€Beam€in€February€1996€toÏtheir€existing€insurance€coverage€with€USAA€were€"applications"€forÏcoverage.€€Their€argument€rests€on€the€last€sentence€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€56„7„1201(a)(2):€"whenever€a€new€application€isÐ p5,/ Ðsubmitted€in€connection€with€any€renewal,€reinstatement€orÏreplacement€transaction,€the€provisions€of€this€section€shall€applyÏin€the€same€manner€as€when€a€new€policy€is€being€issued."€ÏTherefore,€they€contend€that€because€they€had€not€specificallyÏrejected€UM€coverage€on€their€personal€umbrella€policy€regardingÏthese€two€"applications,"€UM€coverage€would€have€been€automaticÏunder€Tennessee€law,€and€consequently,€UM€coverage€would€have€beenÏin€effect€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€ÌÌà  àIn€addition,€the€Beams€assert€that€they€never€received€anyÏnotification€from€USAA€that€UM€coverage€had€been€removed€from€theirÏumbrella€policy.€€The€Beams€note€that€the€umbrella€policy€thatÏbecame€effective€on€May€3,€1994,€a€month€after€Mr.€Beam€hadÏrejected€UM€coverage,€stated€on€the€declaration€page€that€UMÏcoverage€was€included.€€They€maintain€that€in€the€two€years€afterÏMr.€Beam€rejected€umbrella€UM€coverage,€he€never€received€anyÏindication€that€he€no€longer€had€UM€coverage.Ì€Ìà  àIn€its€ruling,€the€trial€court€commented€on€two€provisions€ofÏthe€umbrella€UM€rejection€form.€€The€court€noted€the€statementÏ"[ññœññññœññp]leaseññ›ññññ›ññ€complete€the€rejection€order€form€on€the€reverse€andÏreturn€it€within€the€next€ten€days."€€The€court€observed€that€"onÏthe€reverse€there's€various€choices€to€be€checked€off€and€the€finalÏstatement€again€stating€that€if€you€do€not€sign€and€return€thisÏrejection€form€within€ten€days,€uninsured€motorist€will€be€added€toÐ `6-0 Ðyour€policy€and€you'll€be€charged€accordingly."€€The€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€in€"[ññœññññœññr]eadingññ›ññññ›ññ€all€the€documents,€there€is€noÏindication€in€the€renewal€that€we€can€see€that€would€alert€anÏordinary€person€that€something€needed€to€be€done€to€includeÏuninsured€motorist€coverage."ÌÌà  àUSAA€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€construe€the€policyÏas€a€whole.€€Specifically,€USAA€notes€that€the€form€also€statesÏ"[ññœññññœññi]fññ›ññññ›ññ€this€is€a€new€policy,€please€return€this€form€with€yourÏapplication.€€If€it€is€a€renewal,€return€this€only€if€you€desire€aÏchange,€or€have€not€previously€signed€a€rejection€form,€within€theÏnext€ten€days."€€USAA€maintains€that€the€rejection€formÏ"specifically€addresses€a€renewal€and€without€ambiguity€clearlyÏinstructs€the€insured€to€return€the€form€if€a€change€is€desiredÏwith€respect€to€previously€rejected€coverage."Ì€Ìà  àInsurance€contracts€are€subject€to€the€same€rules€ofÏconstruction€and€enforcement€as€contracts€generally.€òòSeeóó€òòññœññññœññHurleyññ›ññññ›ññ€v.Ð @)à" ÐTennessee€Framers€ññœññññœññMutññ›ññññ›ññ.€Ins.€Co.óó,€922€S.W.2d€887€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€Ð  +À!$ ÐInsurance€contracts€are€to€be€construed€in€such€a€way€"as€to€giveÏeffect€to€the€intention€and€express€language€of€the€parties."€ÏòòññœññññœññBlaylockññ›ññññ›ññ€&€Brown€ññœññññœññConstrññ›ññññ›ññ.,€Inc.€v.€ññœññññœññAIUññ›ññññ›ññ€Ins.€Co.óó,796€S.W.2d€146,€149Ð À0`'* Ð(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€To€determine€whether€there€was€a€renewal€of€anÏexisting€policy€or€whether€a€new€policy€was€issued,€one€should€lookÏto€the€intent€of€the€contracting€parties€as€evidenced€by€the€policyÐ `6-0 Ðitself.€òòLewis€v.€Western€ññœññññœññAssurññ›ññññ›ññ.€Co.óó,€175€Tenn.€37,€130€S.W.2d€982Ð `  Ð(1939).€The€intention€of€the€parties€should€be€determined€from€theÏconstruction€of€the€insurance€contract€as€a€whole.€òòBurns€v.Ð  À ÐTemperature€Control€Co.óó,€52€Tenn.€App.€51,€371€S.W.2d€804€(1962).€Ð   ÐThe€words€e‚xpressing€the€parties'€intentions€should€be€given€theirÏusual,€natural€and€ordinary€meaning.€€òòTaylor€v.€White€Stores,€Inc.óó,Ð À`  Ð707€S.W.2d€514€(Tenn.€App.€1985).Ìà  àà ` àÌà  àIn€our€discussion€of€the€personal€umbrella€policy€in€ññœññthisññ›ññÏññœññcase,ññ›ññ€we€note€that€it€is€undisputed€that€on€April€1,€1994€Mr.€BeamÏsigned€a€form€rejecting€umbrella€UM€coverage.€€The€Beams,€who€ññœññññœññhadÏhadññ›ññññ›ññ€a€personal€umbrella€policy€with€USAA€since€1986,€had€never€hadÏUM€coverage€under€their€umbrella€policy.€€€However,€the€Beams€argueÏthat€their€addition€of€the€1996€Camaro€and€their€daughter€to€theirÏexisting€insurance€coverage€with€USAA€constituted€"applications"Ïfor€insurance€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€56„7„1201(a)(2),€andÏas€such,€provided€UM€coverage€automatically€under€Tennessee€law.ÌÌà  àTo€determine€whether€there€was€a€new€policy€or€a€renewal,€weÏmust€look€at€the€language€in€the€policy€as€evidence€of€the€parties'Ïintentions.€€The€statement€"RENEWAL€OF€Policy€Number€USAA€€00122€83Ï80€ññœññññœññ7OUññ›ññññ›ññ"€appears€at€the€top€of€the€personal€umbrella€policyÏdeclarations€page.€€Also,€on€the€lower€part€of€the€page€is€theÏfollowing€statement:€"Form€and€Endorsement(s)€made€part€of€thisÏpolicy€at€time€of€issue:€€REMAIN€IN€EFFECT€(REFER€TO€PREVIOUSÐ `6-0 ÐPOLICY):"€€At€the€bottom€of€the€same€page€is€the€statement,€"ATTACHÏTHIS€DECLARATION€TO€PREVIOUS€POLICY"€in€capital€letters€and€boldÏtype.€Clearly,€the€policy€language€indicates€a€renewal€and€not€anÏapplication€for€coverage.€ÌÌà  àIn€addition,€Tennessee's€UM€statute€clearly€provides€theÏprocedure€for€adding€UM€coverage€once€it€has€been€rejected:€ÌÌÓÓà8  àà ` àAny€document€signed€by€the€named€insured€or€legalÏrepresentative€which€initially€rejects€such€coverage€orÏselects€lower€limits€shall€be€binding€upon€every€insuredÏto€whom€such€policy€applies,€and€shall€be€conclusivelyÏpresumed€to€become€a€part€of€the€policyà È àor€contract€whenÐ  À Ðissued€or€delivered,€irrespective€of€whether€physicallyÏattached€thereto.€€Unless€theà  ànamed€insured€subsequentlyÐ   Ðrequests€such€coverage€in€writing,€the€rejected€coverageÏneed€not€be€included€in€or€supplemental€to€anyÏcontinuation,€renewal,€reinstatement,€or€replacement€ofÏsuch€policy,€or€the€transfer€of€vehicles€insuredÏthereunder,€where€the€named€insured€had€rejected€theÏcoverage€in€connection€with€a€policy€previously€issued€byÏthe€same€insurer.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„1201(a)(2).ÌœññÌññ›ÌÓÓà  àThe€record€reveals€that€the€Beams€were€well€aware€of€theÏsituation€regarding€UM€coverage€under€their€umbrella€policy.€ÏFirst,€USAA€sent€Mr.€Beam€a€letter€dated€March€2,€1994€in€whichÏUSAA€explained€the€procedure€for€rejecting€UM€coverage€inÏTennessee.€€Second,€Mr.€Beam€and€Mrs.€Beam€both€discussed€umbrellaÏUM€coverage€with€a€USAA€service€representative.€€A€representativeÏspoke€with€Mrs.€Beam€on€March€21,€1994€regarding€the€rejection€formÏthat€was€mailed€to€the€Beams.€€Mrs.€Beam€indicated€to€theÐ `6-0 Ðrepresentative€that€she€would€discuss€the€matter€with€her€husband.€ÏOn€April€4,€1994,€USAA€had€not€received€a€response€from€the€BeamsÏregarding€the€umbrella€UM€rejection€form,€so€UM€coverage€wasÏincluded,€as€explained€in€the€letter€sent€to€Mr.€Beam.€€On€April€5,Ï1994,€Mr.€Beam€called€USAA€to€discuss€the€rejection€form€and€theÏpremium€for€UM€coverage€on€the€umbrella€policy.€€According€to€theÏcomputer€documentation€entered€by€the€USAA€service€representativeÏat€the€time€of€the€conversation,€Mr.€Beam€indicated€that€he€wouldÏprobably€return€the€rejection€form,€thereby€rejecting€UM€coverageÏon€the€umbrella€policy.€€Lastly,€Mr.€Beam€signed€the€UM€rejectionÏform€on€April€1,€1994€and€sent€the€form€to€USAA.€€USAA€posted€aÏcredit€of€$144.90€for€the€umbrella€UM€coverage€on€May€3,€1994.€€ÌÌà  àMr.€Beam€argues€that€USAA€did€not€tell€him€that€UM€coverageÏwas€not€included€under€his€personal€umbrella€policy€and€that€he€wasÏuninformed€regarding€his€insurance€coverages.€€We€find€thisÏargument€unpersuasive€in€light€of€the€fact€that€Mr.€Beam€signed€theÏUM€rejection€form€himself€and€in€light€of€all€the€communicationÏbetween€USAA€and€the€Beams€concerning€this€matter.€Mr.€BeamÏtestified€that€the€signature€on€the€UM€rejection€form€appeared€toÏbe€his,€although€he€could€not€remember€signing€the€form.€€Moreover,Ïthe€record€reflects€that€Mr.€Beam,€an€airline€pilot,€is€not€aÏneophyte€regarding€insurance€matters.€€The€computer€documentationÏof€telephone€conversations€between€USAA€and€Mr.€Beam€indicates€thatÏhe€frequently€inquired€about€insurance€premiums,€deductible€limits,Ð `6-0 Ðand€other€aspects€of€his€insurance€coverage.€€The€USAA€computerÏdocumentation€also€reveals€that€Mr.€Beam€inquired€about€insuranceÏcoverage€regarding€his€daughter's€boyfriend's€use€of€one€of€theÏfamily's€vehicles,€his€daughter's€move€from€a€learner's€permit€toÏdriver's€license,€and€other€similar€details€regarding€insuranceÏcoverage€for€his€family.€€Consequently,€we€cannot€accept€Mr.€Beam'sÏargument€that€he€was€uninformed€or€unsophisticated€regardingÏmatters€of€insurance.€€Mr.€Beam€signed€the€rejection€form,€so€heÏknew€or€should€have€œknownññ€what€he€was€doingññ›€by€that€œactññ€what€he€was€doingññ.›€€In€theÏfinal€analysis,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€UM€coverage€under€theÏumbrella€policy.ÌÌà  àAssuming,€however,€for€the€purposes€of€discussion€and€for€noÏother€reason,€that€the€umbrella€policy€does€provide€UM€coverage,Ïunquestionably€it€is€a€policy€issued€under€Tennessee€law€and€is€aÏ"policy€delivered,€issued€for€delivery€or€renewed€in€this€state."€ÏTherefore,€it€is€subject€to€application€of€Tennessee€law.€€AsÏhereinbefore€noted,€Tennessee€law€prohibits€the€stacking€of€UMÏcoverage.€€òòSee€Cummingsóó,€supra.,€and€T.C.A.€œððñ$ñÔ% € Ôñ$ñ›€56„7„1205.€Ð  +À!$ ÐÌà  à€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏfind€that€UM€coverage€was€not€available€to€the€Beams€under€theirÏumbrella€policy.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  2@), Їà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€record€supports€a€finding€that€USAAÏacted€in€"bad€faith"€by€denying€coverage.ÌÌà  àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€allowing€a€stackingÏof€the€Pennsylvania€policy€with€the€Tennessee€Policy.€€We€reverseÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€that€there€was€UM€coverage€underÏthe€umbrella€policy€and€that€the€umbrella€policy€coverage€could€beÏstacked€with€the€other€policies.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€such€further€action€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€ofÏthe€appeal€are€assessed€equally€between€the€parties.ÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà€-(#à______________________________ˆÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌ___________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌœññÐ  @)à" Ðññññ›ñññ ñññÌñññ ñññÑ  ÑÑ7€-îXXdðXXdð7Ñ€€€à@ˆˆìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSˆÐ `  Ðà@$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌñññ'ñññÌÌñññ'ñññÌÓ  ÓJAMES€M.€BEAM€and€JOYCE€A.€BEAM,€€€)€Knox€ChanceryÌIndividually€and€as€Nextà h àà À àà  à)€C.A.€No.€03A01„9802„CH„00055Ð   Ðof€Kin€ofà ` àKAREN€H.€BEAM,€Deceased,à  à)Ð ð Ðand€Next€Friend€of€LANCE€B.€BEAM,€à  à)Ð à€ ÐA€Minor,à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð Ðp  Ðñññ(ñññà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìñññ(ñññà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ À`  Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiffs„Appellees€à  à)Ð °P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€HON.€FREDERICK€D.€MCDONALDÌvs.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€CHANCELLORÐ €  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌUNITED€SERVICES€AUTOMOBILE€à À àà  à)Ð Pð ÐASSOCIATION,€and/or€USAA€CASUALTYà  à)Ð @à ÐINSURANCE€COMPANY,€and/or€USAA€à  à)Ð 0Ð ÐGENERAL€INDEMNITY€COMPANY,à À àà  à)Ð  À Ðñ)ñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìñ)ñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,Ìà  àà ` àDefendants„Appellants€à  à)€REVERSED€IN€PART€ANDà Ð àÐ   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€)€REMANDEDÌÌñ$ñ›ñ$ñÔ‡X-îXXX-îÔÓ$°,X™X°œX$Óñ*ññ!ñÌñ!ññ*ññ&ñÓ  Óñ&ñà@  &ìàò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óˆÐ Ð p Ðñ+ñÌñ+ñÌÓÓà  àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Knox€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinion€that€there€wasÏerror€in€the€trial€court.ÌÔ#†X-îXXX-î†#Ôñ&ñ›ñ&ññ$ñÔ% € Ôñ$ññ%ñà  àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€allowing€a€stackingÐ 0*Ð # Ðof€the€Pennsylvania€policy€with€the€Tennessee€Policy.€€We€reverseÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€that€there€was€UM€coverage€underÏthe€umbrella€policy€and€that€the€umbrella€policy€coverage€could€beÏstacked€with€the€other€policies.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€such€further€action€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€ofÏthe€appeal€are€assessed€equally€between€the€parties.ÌÓÓñ%ñ›œñ,ñÌñ,ñ›œñ,ñà  àñ,ñ›œñ,ñà ` àñ,ñ›œñ,ñà ¸ àñ,ñ›œñ,ñà  àñ,ñ›œñ,ñà h àñ,ñ›œñ,ñà À àñ,ñ›œñ,ñà  àñ,ñ›œñ,ñPER€CURIAMñ,ññ-ññ,ñÐ @8à.2 Ðñ,ññ-ñ›