ÿWPCI% º°½E{`áÓrYâ¬?qI]7ó¡k’L,¯Ê„é@ë¬êÓ\rçSñè Äi‚fªÚKE1fØIèÅ»ïv.~Q$·Œè_Bnþ \}¨[Šð¹t¢Jštþ?Ü­°æ× R*ÝEÁ`EEðÕã £åÕ'M|·:Ù„–€…È«äN}°†m8.?šh~¶a@³ÎªXX{D /×JÖûjµ~š¥‘YzèóÁ“ï1ñýv·*ýTf1BêØ™GzÈCâP˜{.a\‰‘9ã s/²8wᥕÄÆî°ÙýÈü–'r¦Ÿ&b–½ÞÁÀ2Â&È B7(ÞcVòÈç„åñ ´çd›n»‡Cýž†m!©ý‰ð·€n–aw•¬×>jµ V­¨ÚÀïÔãeŽ[ ¾öt·0å¸c@—§5s©ËCÇc•R0 &l$ÇãÜýxl˜bÉ?é;Ѻü"¾Tj˜óQo¸|Ê'ë]³nÂŽhÄ¿hƒ¶ÏS÷èñŒ’ôMiþy‡Þ¬é‹Õ/ìzßÌ"úÒ}$¥ècÄÎÿÙò§~czßÏ Bed ˆ¯5ßhÜý³‰Ê¢Ñ4F’âkY{iœùÚËjYƒ¥9Dh³÷¿b#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UUN ^ O U5>[ z™ Ò yå 0D^œ¢î>Æ,ÆòƸÆ~wDNH4J^Emo mqΈˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆbVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 0:^^^^^ ˜˜˜˜˜ ª ¼ LÒ     4 4 4 0ëF F F F B1!1! 0¤N! D3ò! D-%" 0KR"R" AS"Æð" 0¤¶# 0DZ$ A«ž$˜HP LaserJet 5ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regulars=/Ï ô\  `‹&Times New Roman ˜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.wpt oÝ ƒR†w$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³% ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡ôj­ò òô³%ÔA€non„moving€party€may€satisfy€his€or€her€burden€by€(1)€pointing€to€evidence€overlooked€or€ignored€by€theÐ ° Ðmoving€party€that€establishes€a€material€factual€dispute,€(2)€by€rehabilitating€the€evidence€attacked€in€the€moving€party'sÐ tÄ  Ðpapers,€(3)€by€producing€additional€evidence€showing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€for€trial,€or€(4)€submitting€anÐ ° Ðaffidavit€explaining€why€further€discovery€is€necessary€as€provided€for€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.06.€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­€#ÔòòÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%ÔóóòòSeeóóòò€òòóóMcCarley€v.€WestÐ tÄ ÐQuality€Food€Servòòóó.,€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­Ä#ÔóóÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%Ô960€S.W.2d€at€588;€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­^#ÔòòÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%ÔòòóóByrd€v.€Hallòòóóóó,Ô#†ô³% òòôj­¶#ÔÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%Ô€847€S.W.2d€at€215,€n.€6.Ô#†ô³% òòôj­#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ’Ý ƒR†w$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³% ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Section€€55„10„408€has€been€amended€since€the€òòBrownóó€decision€and€now€section€55„10„408(a)€is€applicable.€Ð ° ÐThis€section€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð tÄ ÐÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%ÔÓ XÓÓ XÓFor€the€purpose€of€proving€a€violation€of€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­A#ÔÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%Ôðð€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­É#ÔÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%Ô55„10„401(a)(1),€evidence€that€there€was,€at€the€timeÐ 8ˆ Ðalleged,€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€(.10%)€or€more€by€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€defendant's€bloodÐ üL Ðshall€create€a€presumption€that€the€defendant's€ability€to€drive€was€sufficiently€impaired€thereby€toÐ À Ðconstitute€a€violation€of€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­#ÔÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%Ôðð€Ô#†ô³% òòôj­¨#ÔÔ‡ôj­ò òô³%Ô55„10„401(a)(1).€Ð „Ô ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓòòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€55„10„408(a).€€Section€55„10„408(b)€only€applies€if€the€defendant€has€ð ðbeen€convicted€one€(1)€orÐ H ˜ Ðmore€times€of€violating€the€provisions€of€ðð€55„10„401ðð€and€the€presumption€of€intoxication€is€0.08%.€€òòTenn.€Code€Annóó.Ð  \ Ððð€55„10„408(b).€€The€2002€amendment,€which€became€effective€July€1,€2003,€substituted€ð ðððeight„hundredths€of€oneÐ Ð  Ðpercent€(.08%)ðððð€for€ð ðððten„hundredths€percent€(.10%)ðððð€and€deleted€section€(b)€altogether.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€55„Ð ” ä  Ð10„408.€€The€2002€amendment,€however,€is€not€applicable€to€the€present€case€as€the€incidents€giving€rise€to€this€suitÐ X ¨  Ðoccurred€prior€to€the€amendmentððs€effective€date.Ô#†ô³% òòôj­ï#Ô äÝ ƒR†w$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³% ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€their€brief,€the€Bills€cite€to€section€56„26„108,€but€the€correct€provision€is€section€56„26„109.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5nPö.ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  COA Hendersonville DUIConseco CBLCowdenSovranDownenMcCarley OmerCarvell J.C.subcaptions CasMerrimackDemontbreunstate[dLudlow i]texempt[ed b]yrebuttableT.C.A.movant- ù-4ÿÿ2EmphasisòòóóÿÿSDU_33ÿÿSDU_34ÿÿStarPageÿÿciteas((Cite as: 15 S.W.3d 83, *89)ÿÿFN;B0022ÿÿSDU_35(|G2†w$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦I ò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼¥»»»ÔÑ8€FqXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îŒî»¼¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼¥»îîŒ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€20,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XFqX»¼¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼¥»XXFqó#ÔDANIEL€BILLS,€JR.,€òòet€al.óó€v.€CONSECO€INSURANCE€CO.òòóóÔ‡XFqX»¼¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2001C„296€€€€€€Tom€E.€Gray,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„01906„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X½XXXFqÔThis€appeal€arises€from€the€alleged€wrongful€denial€of€insurance€coverage€due€to€an€intoxicationÐ xÈ  Ðexclusion€in€an€insurance€policy.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€insurance€companyððs€motion€forÐ d´ Ðsummary€judgment,€dismissing€the€case€with€prejudice.€€The€parties€raise€a€single€issue€on€appeal.€Ð P  ÐFor€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm.€€Ð <Œ ÐÔ#†XFqXXX½“#ÔÔ#†¼¥»XXFqw#ÔÔ‡XFqX»¼¥ÔÌÓ‡ÓÌò òÓ °X°œXÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¥»àXFq–#ÔÔ‡XFqX.¼¥ÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€David€R.€Farmer,€J.,€joined€andÐ Ø( ÐHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.,€concurred€separately.Ð Ä ÐÌMichael€W.€Edwards,€Hendersonville,€TN,€for€AppellantsÐ œì ÐÌMartin€B.€Bailey,€Knoxville,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ tÄ ÐÓSÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼¥»XXFq‚#ÔÔ‡XFqX»¼¥ÔÐ L œ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼¥»XXFqH #ÔÔ‡XFqX»¼¥ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X½XXXFqÔà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ $"t! ÐÌà  àDaniel€Bills,€Jr.€(ð ðBills,€Jr.ðð),€a€minor,€was€injured€when€his€car€struck€a€telephone€pole€onÐ ü#L# ÐSeptember€9,€2000€at€approximately€12:44€a.m.€€Bills,€Jr.€admitted€to€drinking€five€(5)€beers€insideÐ è$8 $ Ða€five€(5)€hour€period€the€night€of€the€accident,€but€claimed€that€the€accident€occurred€because€theÐ Ô%$!% Ðroads€were€wet€with€rain€and€his€tires€slid€out€from€under€him.€€The€officer€who€arrived€on€the€sceneÐ À&"& Ðsmelled€the€odor€of€alcohol€on€Bills,€Jr.ððs€breath,€but€did€not€perform€any€sobriety€tests€at€the€scene.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Bills,€Jr.,€he€was€given€pain€medication€while€in€the€ambulance€on€his€way€toÐ „)Ô$) ÐHendersonville€Hospital.€€Upon€arrival,€the€hospital€took€a€blood€sample€and€performed€a€bloodÐ p*À%* Ðalcohol€test€which€indicated€that€Bills,€Jr.€had€a€BAC€level€of€0.137.€€These€results€wereÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âsubsequently€provided€to€the€police€officer€and€Bills,€Jr.€was€charged€with€driving€under€theÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôinfluence€(ð ðDUIðð),€but€the€Sumner€County€Juvenile€Court€dismissed€the€DUI€charge€and€found€Bills,Ð ° ÐJr.€guilty€of€reckless€driving.€Ð œì Ðâ âÔ_ÔÌà  àBills,€Jr.€and€his€parents,€Daniel€Bills,€Sr.€and€Deborah€Bills€(collectively€ð ðthe€Billsðð)€areÐ tÄ Ðinsured€under€a€group€health€insurance€policy€provided€by€Conseco€Insurance€CompanyÐ `° Ð(ð ðConsecoðð).€€€€Their€policy€contains€an€intoxication€exclusion€which€states€that€Conseco€will€notÐ L œ Ðpay€claims€for€any€loss€resulting€from€ð ðany€loss€sustained€or€contracted€while€an€insured€person€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðintoxicated,€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants.€.€.€ððIntoxicationðð€means€that€which€is€determined€andÐ $ t Ðdefined€by€the€laws€and€jurisdiction€of€that€geographical€area€in€which€the€loss€or€cause€of€loss€wasÐ  ` Ðincurred.€.€.€.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€this€accident,€the€Bills€incurred€medical€expenses€totaling€$18,451.82.€€TheÐ Ô$  ÐBills€submitted€the€medical€bills€to€Conseco,€but€Conseco€denied€the€claim€based€upon€theÐ À  Ðintoxication€exclusion.€€Subsequently,€the€Bills€sued€Conseco€for€bad„faith€denial€of€insuranceÐ ¬ü  Ðcoverage,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€56„7„105,€or€in€the€alternative€for€breachÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€insurance€policy€by€a€wrongful€denial€of€coverage.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€Billsðð€suit€was€based€on€their€allegations€that€Bills,€Jr.€had€not€been€determinedÐ \¬ Ðð ðintoxicatedðð€by€a€court€of€law.€The€Bills€argued€that€Conseco€violated€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ H˜ Ðsection€56„7„105€and€sought€damages€for€$18,451.82€(the€total€amount€of€the€medical€bills),€accruedÐ 4„ Ðinterest€on€the€medical€bills,€pre„judgment€interest,€and€an€amount€equal€to€twenty„five€percentÐ  p Ð(25%)€of€the€medical€bills€for€attorney€fees,€costs,€and€loss€of€time.€€In€the€alternative,€the€BillsÐ  \ Ðargued€that€Conseco€breached€the€insurance€policy€by€wrongfully€denying€coverage.€€Under€thisÐ øH Ðtheory,€the€Bills€sought€to€recover€$18,451.82€for€medical€bills,€accrued€interest€on€the€medical€bills,Ð ä4 Ðpre„judgment€interest,€and€loss€of€time.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€October€11,€2001,€Conseco€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€uponÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€relief€can€be€granted.€€In€response,€the€Bills€argued€that€the€intoxication€exclusion€violatedÐ ”ä Ðpublic€policy€and€that€the€complaint€stated€a€valid€claim€because€Bills,€Jr.€was€not€determined€to€beÐ €Ð Ðintoxicated€by€a€court€in€a€criminal€proceeding.€€The€Bills€also€argued€that€there€were€facts€outsideÐ l¼ Ðthe€pleadings€that€sufficiently€rebutted€the€presumption€that€Bills,€Jr.€was€intoxicated.€€The€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðdenied€Consecoððs€motion€by€order€dated€December€19,€2001.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThereafter,€on€May€15,€2001,€Conseco€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€asserting€thatÐ #l! ÐConseco€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€In€response,€the€Bills€asserted€that€theÐ $X" Ðintoxication€exclusion€violated€public€policy,€that€Bills,€Jr.€should€have€first€been€determined€to€beÐ ô$D # Ðintoxicated€in€a€criminal€proceeding,€that€material€facts€existed€as€to€whether€or€not€Bills,€Jr.€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðintoxicated,€and€that€even€if€Bills,€Jr.€was€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€there€should€be€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcausal€connection€between€the€intoxication€and€the€accident.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àBy€order€entered€July€23,€2002,€the€trial€court€granted€Consecoððs€motion€for€summaryÐ )à$( Ðjudgment,€dismissing€the€case€with€prejudice.€€Thereafter,€the€Bills€timely€filed€their€notice€of€appealÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€raise€the€following€issue€for€our€review.€Ð h+¸&* Ðò òÓ  ÓIssueó óÐ ° ÐÌÓÂÓà  àI.ò òà0 ` àó óWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Consecoððs€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðdismissing€the€case€in€its€entirety.€ÐtÄ` (#` (# ÐÌò òÓ  ÓStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ L œ ÐÌÓËÓà  àThe€standard€of€review€to€be€applied€when€assessing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€wasÐ $ t Ðset€forth€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Associates.,€Incóó.,€15€S.W.3d€83€(Tenn.€2000):€Ð  ` ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÔ#†XFqXXX½Ô #ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€court's€review€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ è 8  Ðjudgment€are€well€settled.€Since€our€inquiry€involves€Ô% ‡C ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½D!#ÔÔ%†Cù!ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔpurely€a€question€of€law,€noÐ Ô$  Ðpresumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€lower€court's€judgment,€and€our€task€isÐ À  Ðconfined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.Ð ¬ü  ÐCiv.€P.€56€have€been€met.€Ô#†XFqXXX½:"#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòóóSeeóó€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,Ô#†XFqXXX½˜##ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€955€S.W.2d€49,€50„51€(Tenn.1997);Ð ˜è  ÐÔ#†XFqXXX½ý##ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòóóCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,Ô#†XFqXXX½y$#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.1991).Ð „Ô  ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€isÐ pÀ Ðappropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€factsÐ \¬ Ðrelevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€Ô#†XFqXXX½è$#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòóóseeóó€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ô#†XFqXXX½b&#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€847Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€asÐ 4„ Ða€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€Ô#†XFqXXX½Ä&#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòóóSeeòòóó€óóòòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,Ô#†XFqXXX½²'#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€857Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.1993).€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€itsÐ  \ Ðmotion€satisfies€these€requirements.€Ô#†XFqXXX½/(#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòSeeóó€òòDownen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,Ô#†XFqXXX½)#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€811€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð523,€524€(Tenn.1991).€When€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properlyÐ ä4 Ðsupported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€factsÐ Ð  Ðestablishing€the€existence€of€disputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€theÐ ¼  Ðtrier€of€fact.€Ô#†XFqXXX½ˆ)#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòSeeóó€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ô#†XFqXXX½3+#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€847€S.W.2d€at€215.Ð ¨ø ÐÓ X!ÓÓ X!ÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmatively€negate€anÐ €Ð Ðessential€element€of€the€non„moving€party's€claim€or€conclusively€establish€anÐ l¼ Ðaffirmative€defense.€Ô#†XFqXXX½•+#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòSeeóó€òòMcCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Servóó.,Ô#†XFqXXX½$-#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€960€S.W.2d€585,€588Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.1998);€Ô#†XFqXXX½-#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,Ô#†XFqXXX½.#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€Ô% ‡H ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½t.#ÔÔ%†H”.ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.1997).€If€the€movingÐ D!” Ðparty€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non„moving€party's€burden€toÐ 0"€  Ðproduce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€is€notÐ #l! Ðtriggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€fail.€Ô#†XFqXXX½Õ.#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòSeeóó€òòMcCarley€v.€WestÐ $X" ÐQuality€Food€Servóó.,Ô#†XFqXXX½c0#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€960€S.W.2d€at€588,€Ô% ‡I ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½ð0#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ*89;Ô%†I#1ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½S1#ÔÔ% ‡J ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€Ô%†Jª1ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½·1#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,Ô#†XFqXXX½2#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€952€S.W.2d€at€426.Ð ô$D # ÐIf€the€moving€party€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„Ð à%0!$ Ðmoving€party€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€toÐ Ì&"% Ðestablish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.Ô% ‡K ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½j2#ÔÔ%†K·3ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XFqXXX½ø3#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔÐ ¸'#& ÐÓ X,ÓÓ X,ÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summary€judgmentÐ œì Ðcontext€are€also€well€established.€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÐ ˆØ Ðfavorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€Ô% ‡O ÔÔ#†XFqXXX½4#ÔÔ%†Oü5ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔall€reasonable€inferences€in€theÐ tÄ Ðnonmoving€party's€favor.€Ô#†XFqXXX½=6#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòSeeóó€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,Ô#†XFqXXX½Ð6#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€Ô#†XFqXXX½67#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ô#†XFqXXX½7#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔÐ `° Ð847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€Courts€should€grant€a€summary€judgment€only€when€both€theÐ L œ Ðfacts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðreach€only€one€conclusion.€Ô#†XFqXXX½ç7#ÔòòÔ‡X½XXXFqÔóóòòSeeóó€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,Ô#†XFqXXX½&9#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.1995);Ð $ t ÐÔ#†XFqXXX½Œ9#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,òòÔ#†XFqXXX½:#ÔóóÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.1995).Ð  ` ÐÌÓ Xæ4ÓÓ Xô4ÓòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€atòò€óó*88€„89.Ð è 8  ÐÔ#†XFqXXX½e:#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔÌò òÓ  ÓLaw€and€Analysisó óÐ À  ÐÓc;ÓÌà  àThe€Bills€first€argue€that€a€determination€of€intoxication€by€a€criminal€court€should€beÐ ˜è  Ðrequired€before€coverage€can€be€denied€under€an€intoxication€exclusion.€€Specifically,€the€Bills€argueÐ „Ô  Ðthat€since€the€charge€of€DUI€was€dismissed€and€the€Sumner€County€Juvenile€Court€found€Bills,€Jr.Ð pÀ Ðguilty€of€reckless€driving,€a€non„alcohol€related€offense,€Bills,€Jr.€was€not€determined€to€beÐ \¬ Ðintoxicated.€€à ` àÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€exclusion€at€issue€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€Ð  p Ðà  àClaims€will€not€be€paid€for€any€loss€resulting€from:Ð  \ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓ.€.€.€Ð øH Ðany€loss€sustained€or€contracted€while€an€insured€person€is€intoxicated,€under€theÐ ä4 Ðinfluence€of€intoxicants€or€under€the€influence€of€any€narcotic€unless€administeredÐ Ð  Ðon€the€advice€of€a€physician.€€ð ðIntoxicationðð€means€that€which€is€determined€andÐ ¼  Ðdefined€by€the€laws€and€jurisdiction€of€that€geographical€area€in€which€the€loss€orÐ ¨ø Ðcause€of€loss€was€incurred.€Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ Xv>ÓÓ Xh>ÓThe€plain€language€of€the€policy€does€not€require€a€criminal€conviction.€€This€Court€will€not€rewriteÐ l¼ Ðthe€contract€for€the€parties.€€It€is€our€duty€to€enforce€the€insurance€policy€as€written.€€òòAllen€v.€BlueÐ X ¨ ÐCross€and€Blue€Shield€of€Tennesseeóó,€No.€02A01„9511„CV„00253,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€169,€atÐ D!” Ð*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€12,€1997).€€We€are€ð ðnot€at€liberty€to€rewrite€policies€of€insurance€to€provideÐ 0"€  Ðcoverage€where€no€coverage€was€intended.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòSpears€v.€Commercial€Ins.€Co.€of€Newark,Ð #l! ÐNew€Jerseyóó,€866€S.W.2d€544,€548€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)).€òòóóÐ $X" Ðâ âÐ ô$D # Ðà  àIn€òòBrown€v.€J.C.€Penny€Life€Insurance€Co.óó,€861€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€thisÐ ° ÐCourt€held€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„408(b)׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€could€be€used€to€give€rise€to€aÐ œì Ðâ âpresumption€that€the€insured€was€intoxicated.€€In€that€case,€we€did€not€require€a€charge,€guilty€pleaÐ ˆØ Ðor€a€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€All€that€was€required€to€invoke€the€presumption€was€that€the€insured€hadÐ tÄ Ða€BAC€of€0.10%.€€Where€there€is€insufficient€evidence€to€rebut€this€presumption,€it€becomesÐ `° Ðconclusive.€€We€hold€that€a€criminal€conviction€is€not€required,€under€the€language€of€the€policy€atÐ L œ Ðissue,€to€invoke€the€presumption€of€intoxication€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„Ð 8 ˆ Ð408(a).€€Thus,€we€find€no€merit€to€the€Billsðð€argument.€€€€€à p àÐ $ t ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Bills€argue€that€the€intoxication€exclusion€violates€public€policy.€€Specifically,€theÐ ü L  ÐBills€argue€that€the€policy€is€a€group€health€policy,€and€as€such,€they€were€unable€to€bargain€over€theÐ è 8  Ðintoxication€exclusion€contained€in€the€policy.€€The€Bills€note€that€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Ô$  Ðsection€56„26„109,׃ À ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€provides€as€follows:Ð À  ÐÌÔ#†XFqXXX½@;#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔÓ XÓÓ XÓExcept€as€provided€in€Ô#†XFqXXX½¡I#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔðð€Ô#†XFqXXX½J#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ56„26„110,€no€such€policy€delivered€or€issued€for€deliveryÐ ˜è  Ðto€any€person€in€this€state€shall€contain€provisions€respecting€the€matters€set€forthÐ „Ô  Ðbelow,€unless€such€provisions€are€in€the€substance€of€the€words€in€which€the€sameÐ pÀ Ðappear€in€this€section;€provided,€that€the€insurer€may,€at€its€option,€use€in€lieu€of€anyÐ \¬ Ðsuch€provision€a€corresponding€provision€of€different€wording,€approved€by€theÐ H˜ Ðcommissioner,€which€is€not€less€favorable€in€any€respect€to€the€insured€or€theÐ 4„ Ðbeneficiary.€Any€such€provision€contained€in€the€policy€shall€be€precededÐ  p Ðindividually€by€the€appropriate€caption€appearing€in€this€section€or,€at€the€option€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€insurer,€by€such€appropriate€individual€or€group€captions€or€subcaptions€as€theÐ øH Ðcommissioner€may€approve.€Ð ä4 Ð.€.€.Ð Ð  Ð(11)€Ô#†XFqXXX½\J#ÔÝ‚>ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝÔ‡X½XXXFqÔIntoxicants€and€Narcotics.Ô#†XFqXXX½ŽN#ÔóóÝ‚>ÿpNÝÝ  ÝÔ‡X½XXXFqÔ€The€insurer€shall€not€be€liable€for€any€loss€sustainedÐ ¼  Ðor€contracted€in€consequence€of€the€insured's€being€intoxicated€or€under€the€influenceÐ ¨ø Ðâ âof€any€narcotic€unless€administered€on€the€advice€of€a€physician.€Ð ”ä ÐÔ#†XFqXXX½O#ÔÓ XÎIÓÓ XÀIÓÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€56„26„109.€€Also€noted€by€the€Bills,€group€insurance€policies,€such€as€the€oneÐ ° Ðin€the€present€case,€are€excluded€from€the€above€statute€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€56„26„Ð œì Ð122,€which€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌÓ XÓÓ XÓa)€Except€as€provided€in€subsection€(b),€nothing€in€this€chapter€applies€to,€or€shallÐ `° Ðaffect:€Ð L œ Ð.€.€.Ð 8 ˆ Ð(3)€Any€blanket€or€group€insurance€policy;€or€Ð $ t Ð.€.€.Ð  ` Ð(b)€Sections€56„26„101€„„€56„26„103€and€56„26„105€apply€to€any€blanket€or€groupÐ ü L  Ðinsurance€policy.Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ XRÓÓ XöQÓòòTenn.€Code€Annóó.€ðð€56„26„122.€€As€the€Bills€concede,€the€ð ðLegislature€has€remained€silent€as€toÐ À  Ðwhether€such€an€alcohol€exclusion€is€allowable€in€a€group€health€insurance€policy€and€there€appearsÐ ¬ü  Ðto€be€no€case€law€in€Tennessee€or€any€other€jurisdiction€for€that€matter€holding€such€a€provision€voidÐ ˜è  Ðas€violating€public€policy.ðð€€In€light€of€the€above€statutes€and€the€lack€of€authority€from€anyÐ „Ô  Ðjurisdiction,€we€find€no€merit€in€the€Billsðð€argument.€€Any€unfairness€in€the€statutes€at€issue,€whichÐ pÀ Ðwe€do€not€concede,€is€best€directed€to€our€legislature.€Ð \¬ Ѐ€€€€Ô#†XFqXXX½›P#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔÐ H˜ Ðà  àThe€Bills€also€argue€that€this€Court€should€construe€the€intoxication€exclusion€to€read€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€insuredððs€intoxication€have€a€causal€connection€to€the€accident€before€coverage€can€be€denied.€Ð  p ÐThe€Bills€argue€that€the€exclusion€clause€is€ambiguous€and€as€such€this€Court€should€construe€it€inÐ  \ Ðthe€light€most€favorable€to€the€insured.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àIf€the€contract€of€insurance€is€ambiguous,€then€the€language€is€to€be€construed€most€favorablyÐ Ð  Ðto€the€insured.€€òòMoore€v.€Life€&€Cas.€Ins.€Co.óó,€40€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1931).€€Where€there€is€noÐ ¼  Ðambiguity,€however,€construction€of€the€policy€language€is€not€permitted.€€òòIdóó.€òòóó€We€find€that€there€isÐ ¨ø Ðno€ambiguity€in€the€intoxication€exclusion€at€issue.€€The€exclusion€clearly€provides€that:€ð ðclaims€willÐ ”ä Ðnot€be€paid€for€any€loss€resulting€from:€.€.€.any€loss€sustained€or€contracted€òòwhileóó€an€insured€personÐ €Ð Ðis€intoxicated,€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants€.€.€.€.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€The€exclusion€does€notÐ l¼ Ðprovide€for€a€causal€connection.€€We€have€previously€held€that€ð ðcourts€are€not€at€liberty€to€rewriteÐ X ¨ Ðan€insurance€policy€solely€because€they€do€not€favor€its€terms,€òòBlack€v.€Aetna€Ins.€Co.óó,€909€S.W.2dÐ D!” Ðat€3,€and€must€avoid€forced€constructions€that€render€a€provision€ineffective€or€extend€a€provisionÐ 0"€  Ðbeyond€its€intended€scope.ðð€€òòMerrimack€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.€v.€Battsóó,€59€S.W.3d€142,€148€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð #l! ÐApp.€2001)€(citing€òòDemontbreun€v.€CNA€Ins.€Co.óó,€822€S.W.2d€619,€621€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)).€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€Bills,€claiming€that€òòBrownóó€is€ð ðnot€grounded€in€reason€and€is€basically€not€good€law,ðð€Ð à%0!$ Ðurge€this€Court€to€apply€the€law€of€other€jurisdictions€that€require€a€casual€link.€€Contrary€to€the€BillsððÐ Ì&"% Ðassertion,€we€find€that€òòBrownóó€is€ð ðgood€lawðð€and€is€the€controlling€law€in€this€state.€€The€policyÐ ¸'#& Ðexclusion€in€òòBrownóó€provided€that€ð ðððno€benefits€shall€be€paid€for€loss€caused€by€or€resulting€from:Ð ¤(ô#' Ð.€.€.€an€injury€occurring€òòwhileóó€covered€person€is€intoxicated.ðððð€€òòBrownóó,€861€S.W.2d€at€835€(emphasisÐ )à$( Ðadded).€€This€Court€rejected€the€insuredððs€argument€that€a€causal€connection€should€be€inserted€intoÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€exclusion€clause€of€the€insurance€policy.€€òòIdóó.€at€837.€€In€doing€so,€we€found€that€the€language€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€policy€was€unambiguous€and€that€ð ðthe€policy€exclusion€[did]€not€speak€of€intoxication€as€aÐ ° Ðððcauseðð€of€the€loss€or€injury;€instead,€it€state[d]€that€no€benefits€shall€be€paid€for€a€loss€ððcaused€by€orÐ œì Ðresulting€from€.€.€.€an€injury€occurring€òòwhileóó€covered€person€is€intoxicated.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€Ð ˆØ ÐIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€cited€òòLudlow€v.€Life€&€Casualty€Insurance€Co.€of€Tennesseeóó,€217Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€361€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1948),€a€case€with€a€policy€provision€similar€to€the€one€in€òòBrownóó€andÐ `° Ðthe€case€at€bar.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€provision€in€òòLudlowóó€provided€that€there€would€be€no€coverage€for€ð ðloss€or€injuryÐ $ t Ðsustained€by€the€insured€òòwhileóó€he€has€physically€present€in€his€body€intoxicating€liquors.€.€.ðð€€òòLudlowóó,Ð  ` Ð217€S.W.2d€at€361€(emphasis€added).€€This€Court€held€that€the€language€of€the€policy€was€plain€andÐ ü L  Ðthat€ð ð[i]t€exempt[ed]€the€defendant€from€liability€if€the€insured€was€under€the€influence€of€liquor€.Ð è 8  Ð.€.,€and€causative€connection€[was]€no€part€of€the€contract.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€364.€€We€further€held:€ð ð[b]y€noÐ Ô$  Ðstretch€of€language€can€we€read€into€this€policy€a€requirement€or€condition€that€a€casual€connectionÐ À  Ðmust€be€shown€where€the€insured€has€placed€himself€within€the€exception€in€question.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€365.€Ð ¬ü  ÐLikewise,€we€find€that€the€language€used€in€the€exclusion€clause€in€the€present€case€is€plain,Ð ˜è  Ðunambiguous,€and€clearly€does€not€require€a€causal€connection€between€the€insuredððs€intoxicationÐ „Ô  Ðand€the€loss.€€As€such,€we€find€no€merit€in€the€Billsðð€argument.à È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àFinally,€the€Bills€argue€that€if€òòBrownóóis€the€controlling€law,€then€summary€judgment€wasÐ H˜ Ðimproper€because€issues€of€material€fact€existed€as€to€whether€Bills,€Jr.€was€intoxicated€at€the€timeÐ 4„ Ðof€the€accident.€€The€Bills€argue€that€they€should€be€allowed€to€put€forth€proof€demonstrating€thatÐ  p ÐBills,€Jr.€was€not€intoxicated€and€that€the€determination€of€intoxication€should€be€made€by€the€trierÐ  \ Ðof€fact.€€We€find€that€òòBrownóó€is€the€controlling€law€in€the€state€on€this€issue.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€òòBrownóó,€the€decedent€was€insured€under€a€life€insurance€policy€which€provided€that€ð ðððnoÐ Ð  Ðbenefits€shall€be€paid€for€loss€caused€by€or€resulting€from:€.€.€.€an€injury€occurring€while€coveredÐ ¼  Ðperson€is€intoxicated.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€at€835.€€Under€the€policy,€the€term€ð ðintoxicatedðð€was€defined€by€the€lawsÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€jurisdiction€where€the€loss€occurred.€€òòIdóó.€€Subsequent€to€her€husbandððs€death,€the€plaintiff€filedÐ ”ä Ða€claim,€seeking€to€recover€benefits€under€the€policy.€€After€J.C.€Penny€denied€the€claim€based€onÐ €Ð Ðthe€intoxication€exclusion,€the€plaintiff€filed€suit.€€òòIdóó.€€Thereafter,€J.C.€Penny€filed€a€motion€forÐ l¼ Ðsummary€judgment,€asserting€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„408(b)€created€aÐ X ¨ Ðrebuttable€presumption€that€ð ða€person€operating€a€motor€vehicle€with€greater€than€a€0.10%€bloodÐ D!” Ðalcohol€level€is€driving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€and€that€this€statute€defines€ððintoxicationððÐ 0"€  Ðunder€Tennessee€law€as€required€by€the€insurance€policy.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Since€the€deceased€had€a€BAC€ofÐ #l! Ð0.16%€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€J.C.€Penny€argued€that€it€was€entitled€to€summary€judgmentÐ $X" Ðbecause€the€decedent€was€intoxicated€under€the€laws€of€Tennessee.€€The€trial€court,€however,Ð ô$D # Ðdisagreed€and€denied€the€motion.€€òòIdóó.€at€836.€€On€appeal,€we€reversed,€holding€that€the€presumptionÐ à%0!$ Ðof€intoxication€enumerated€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„408(b)€may€be€used€toÐ Ì&"% Ðdetermine€whether€a€person€is€intoxicated€within€the€meaning€of€an€exclusionary€clause€in€anÐ ¸'#& Ðinsurance€policy.€€òòIdóó.€€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€reaching€this€result,€we€noted€that:Ð ° ÐÌÔ#†XFqXXX½V#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔÓ XÓÓ XÓSince€the€statute€creates€only€a€presumption€of€intoxication,€however,€we€do€notÐ ˆØ Ðbelieve€that€a€finding€of€0.10%€blood€alcohol€conclusively€establishes€that€theÐ tÄ Ðinsured€was€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€loss.€Instead,€the€statute€may€be€used€by€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€to€create€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€decedent€was€intoxicated€at€theÐ L œ Ðtime€of€the€loss€but€the€plaintiff€may€introduce€evidence€to€overcome€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðpresumption.€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€may€consider€the€definition€ofÐ $ t Ðintoxication€from€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„408(b)€in€determining€whether€the€decedent€wasÐ  ` Ðintoxicated€pursuant€to€the€language€of€the€insurance€policy€at€the€time€of€theÐ ü L  Ðaccident;€however,€the€plaintiff€may€also€introduce€evidence€that€the€decedent€wasÐ è 8  Ðnot€intoxicated€at€the€time,€even€though€he€had€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€greater€thanÐ Ô$  Ð0.10%€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€If€the€presumption€is€not€rebutted€by€the€plaintiffÐ À  Ðthen€the€defendant€has€conclusively€established€that€the€decedent€was€intoxicated€asÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€term€is€defined€by€the€laws€in€Tennessee.€If,€on€the€other€hand,€the€plaintiff€doesÐ ˜è  Ðput€on€evidence€to€rebut€this€presumption€then€the€trier€of€fact€must€determineÐ „Ô  Ðwhether€by€reason€of€drinking€intoxicants,€the€plaintiff€did€not€have€the€normal€useÐ pÀ Ðof€his€physical€or€mental€faculties,€and€thus€was€rendered€incapable€of€acting€in€aÐ \¬ Ðmanner€in€which€an€ordinarily€prudent€and€cautious€person,€in€full€possession€of€hisÐ H˜ Ðfaculties,€using€reasonable€care,€would€act€under€like€conditions.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ X¬sÓÓ XžsÓÔ#†XFqXXX½s#ÔÔ‡X½XXXFqÔòòIdóó.€at€836.€€J.C.€Penny€submitted€evidence€that€supported€a€finding€that€the€decedent€was€intoxicatedÐ  \ Ðat€the€time€of€the€accident.€€The€plaintiff€offered€no€countervailing€evidence€that€created€a€genuineÐ øH Ðissue€of€material€fact€and€as€such,€the€presumption€of€intoxication€became€conclusive€and€summaryÐ ä4 Ðjudgment€was€appropriate.€€òòIdóó.€at€837.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ð  Ѐ€€€à  àà ` àÐ ¼  Ðà  àSimilarly,€we€hold€that€Conseco€may€use€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„408(a)Ð ¨ø Ðto€establish€a€presumption€that€Bills,€Jr.€was€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€In€support€ofÐ ”ä Ðits€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Conseco€argued€that€because€Bills,€Jr.ððs€BAC€was€0.137€he€shouldÐ €Ð Ðbe€presumed€intoxicated.€€In€response,€the€Bills€argued€that€Bills,€Jr.€was€given€pain€medication€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€ambulance€and€that€this€medication€may€have€effected€the€BAC€level,€which€test€was€given€atÐ X ¨ Ðthe€hospital.€€The€Bills€also€asserted€that€the€first€police€officer€on€the€scene€did€not€conduct€anyÐ D!” Ðsobriety€tests,€that€one€of€the€paramedics€informed€Mr.€Bills€that€Bills,€Jr.€was€not€intoxicated€andÐ 0"€  Ðwas€ð ðperfectly€fine,ðð€and€that€neither€Ms.€Bills€or€Mr.€Bills€detected€the€smell€of€alcohol€on€their€son.€Ð #l! ÐFinally,€while€the€Bills€concede€that€Bills,€Jr.€consumed€five€(5)€beers€within€five€(5)€hours,€the€BillsÐ $X" Ðargue€that€Bills,€Jr.€was€6'3"€and€weighed€approximately€200€pounds€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€none€of€the€Billsðð€allegations€create€a€material€factual€dispute.€€This€Court€hasÐ Ì&"% Ðpreviously€held€that€the€ð ðnon„moving€partyððs€burden€is€not€satisfied€by€simply€showing€that€thereÐ ¸'#& Ðis€some€ððmetaphysical€doubt€as€to€the€material€facts.ðð€€Rather,€the€non„movant€must€show€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecord€would€support€a€finding€by€a€ððrational€trier€of€factðð€in€favor€of€the€non„movant.ðð€€òòMaynard€v.Ð )à$( ÐThe€Vanderbilt€Univ.óó,€No.€01„A„01„9211„CH„00437,€1993€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€351,€at€*16„17€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) ÐCt.€App.€May€14,€1993)€(citations€omitted).€€In€order€to€avoid€summary€judgment,€the€non„movantÐ h+¸&* Ðmust€ð ðcome€forward€with€ððother€evidence€that€is€sufficiently€unambiguous€to€permit€a€trier€of€factÐ ° Ðto€find€[in€favor€of€that€party].ðððð€€òòIdóó.€at€*17€(citations€omitted).€€To€defeat€a€properly€supportedÐ œì Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment,€the€non„movant€must€produce€ð ðððconcrete€evidence€from€which€aÐ ˆØ Ðreasonable€juror€could€return€a€verdict€in€his€favor.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€at€*17„18€(citations€omitted).€€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWhen€these€standards€are€applied€to€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€it€is€clear€that€summary€judgmentÐ L œ Ðwas€appropriate.€€The€Bills€do€no€more€than€allege€the€possibility€of€a€factual€dispute,€which€is€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðsufficient€to€evade€summary€judgment.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€€Ð $ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÓ  Óò òConclusionó ó€Ð ü L  ÐÌÓȈÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellants,€DanielÐ Ø(  ÐBills,€Sr.,€Deborah€Bills,€and€Daniel€Bills,€Jr.,€and€their€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ Ä  Ðnecessary.Ð °  ÐÔ#†XFqXXX½={#ÔÔ#†¼¥»XXFq¦ #ÔÔ€XFqX»¼¥ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Lœ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE