ÿWPC# _s·KŸ®L÷*›1¥þæ»N<„¼çÞîÛƒãd ùyíuW¡5EßF•Ì;ð™  A…‹ps ð/Ý%hTü&±u¬FU­€æ´Aض••ú}¶Âë Úòè.Z¢ù@[Eõö0mìíŧ¯Óm›Ý°.žgÀtÁ<£ÆC#½§ ˜ßA}†t òVFÜÃÛO0ì6[o÷dTÒ‚êÆŒE—]ã|01Œ§:£2¡oÅÆZµA Räsöqè22Ë`È1€Áu3.”GÊy \ ËŸ¬ÔìCúrñ?“`ÃZgŸÇç£eàP-?õUÈ‘)!Œ–I˜œöeþ‚»b’޳P+Ç‹Ò£Ž‘ üåm D(ÉCÉÀ}ÅbŸÊÍçK}î‹€Vä}EŠÜƒ¦ÀÝ£Õ‹4_·ñ{‚nxëì‚Uä>ZuÏ¡Mä¬ßÍ µ{d‚cL¦ÌŸÉóä1ô3%š¯t¦×/´ç>-˜Ó³S„Ì+¿¹›­¢†€"‚4D¬*ã•Í׬«JúÆC&¿ù9^^P’åò¯³U“¢N"Í|´ú¾Äº•OÒ½WÈÏ)(ã÷I@^‰.C'¯‹¾Æá]ÙúÊNèÚ‡‰tb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1m÷Nd 0DfUNªEøúb 0ë     B   0¤( D3Ì D-ÿ 0K,, ASwÆÊ 0¤ 0D4 A«x˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»v:)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?Æ(*G:\ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 cÝ ƒRÇ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÒŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€previously€stated,€that€paragraph€provides:€ð ðif€there€is€any€question€or€controversy€between€agents€as€toÐ ° Ðwho€is€entitled€to€a€particular€commission,€the€Companyððs€decision€thereon€shall€be€final.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular  Ñ ° Ñ- ù-(|G2Ç$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÒŒò»»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€¢SXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€OaÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îøî»¼©ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼©»îîø#ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÌÔ‡X¢SX»¼©ÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼©»XX¢S#ÔRHEA€E.€BURNS,€JR.€€€v.€€NEW€YORK€LIFE€INSURANCE€COMPANYÔ‡X¢SX»¼©Ôó óÐ  h ÐÌÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ `  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2„238„95€€€€€€Hon.€Harold€Wimberly,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ P  ÐÌÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€26,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ð  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¿` AßÐ À ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00158„COA„R3„CVÐ ¿ ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<ž` AßÐ Ÿï Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓPlaintiff,€an€insurance€sales€agent€for€New€York€Life€Insurance€Company,€alleged€that€he€enteredÐ ŽÞ Ðinto€an€oral€agreement€with€another€New€York€Life€Insurance€agent€for€the€two€agents€to€sell€lifeÐ ~Î Ðinsurance€policies€to€a€particular€family€and€share€the€sales€commissions.€€Some€time€later,€a€disputeÐ n¾ Ðarose€between€Plaintiff€and€the€second€New€York€Life€Insurance€agent€over€who€was€entitled€toÐ ^® Ðreceive€certain€sales€commissions.€€After€Plaintiff€did€not€receive€a€share€of€those€sales€commissions,Ð Nž Ðhe€sought€the€assistance€of€New€York€Life€in€resolving€his€dispute€with€the€second€agent.€€New€YorkÐ >Ž ÐLife€accepted€statements€from€both€agents€and€then€declined€to€intervene€on€Plaintiffððs€behalf.€Ð .~ ÐPlaintiff€brought€suit€against€the€second€agent€and€New€York€Life,€but€later€non„suited€the€claimÐ n Ðagainst€the€agent.€€Plaintiff€alleged€that€New€York€Life€was€contractually€required€to€make€a€decisionÐ ^ Ðin€a€commission€dispute€between€its€agentsÔ#†¼©»XX¢S„#ÔÔ‡X¢SX»¼©Ô,€and€that€if€it€had€made€a€decision,€the€industry€standardÐ þN Ðpractice€would€have€required€the€company€to€decide€in€his€favor.€€He€sought€damages€from€NewÐ î > ÐYork€LifeÔ#†¼©»XX¢SP #ÔÔ‡X¢SX»¼©Ô€for€breach€of€contract€and€under€a€quantum€meruit€theory.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€NewÐ Þ!.  ÐYork€Lifeððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€Plaintiff€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€Judgment€of€the€TrialÐ Î"! ÐCourt.Ð ¾#" ÐÓÂÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.ó óÐ ž%î $ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼©»àX¢S\ #ÔÔ‡X¢SX.¼©ÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddardóó,€P.J.Ð ~'Î"& Ðand€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,óó€J.òòóó,€joined.Ð n(¾#' ÐÌDouglas€C.€Weinstein,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Rhea€E.€Burns,€Jr.Ð N*ž%) ÐÌRichard€J.€McAfee,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€New€York€Life€Insurance€Company.Ð .,~'+ ÐÐ -n(,ýÿ ÐÓó ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼©»XX¢S" #ÔÐ  ð ÐÔ€X¢SX»¼©ÔÌò òòòBackgroundóóó óÐ €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àRhea€E.€Burns,€Jr.€(€Plaintiff),€became€an€insurance€sales€agent€for€New€York€LifeÐ ` ° ÐInsurance€Company€(Defendant),€on€December€2,€1986,€by€entering€into€an€ð ðAgentððs€Contractðð€withÐ P   ÐDefendant.€€That€contract€provides€that€Plaintiff€receives€sales€commissions€on€policies€of€insuranceÐ @  Ðwhich€he€sells,€subject€to€the€terms€of€the€contract€and€to€the€rules€relating€to€commissions€asÐ 0 € Ðcontained€in€the€Agentððs€Handbook.€€The€Agentððs€€Handbook€provides,€at€paragraph€13(a)(ii),€thatÐ  p  Ðð ðif€there€is€any€question€or€controversy€between€agents€as€to€who€is€entitled€to€a€particularÐ `  Ðcommission,€the€Companyððs€decision€thereon€shall€be€final.ðð€€Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` àRobert€H.€Noe,€a€former€Defendant€in€this€suit€but€not€a€party€in€this€appeal,€is€alsoÐ à0  Ða€New€York€Life€Insurance€sales€agent.€€In€late€1989,€Plaintiff€learned€of€an€upcoming€auction€whichÐ Ð  Ðwould€be€attended€by€several€wealthy€families,€including€members€of€the€Mindle€Collier€family.€Ð À ÐPlaintiff€desired€to€secure€the€insurance€business€of€the€Collier€family.€€He€contacted€Noe€and€askedÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔNoeÔ_Ô€to€attend€the€auction€with€him€and€to€introduce€him€to€Noeððs€client,€Z€Buda,€who€might€thenÐ  ð Ðintroduce€Plaintiff€to€the€Collier€family.€€Noe€agreed€to€assist€Plaintiff€in€his€efforts,€and€the€twoÐ à Ðinsurance€agents€agreed€orally€to€share€the€commissions€from€the€sales€of€the€insurance€policies€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€Collier€family.€€Through€the€substantial€efforts€of€both€Plaintiff€and€Noe,€term€life€insuranceÐ pÀ Ðpolicies€were€sold€to€the€Collier€family€in€March€1990.€€The€commissions€from€the€sales€were€sharedÐ `° Ðbetween€Plaintiff€and€Noe,€with€Plaintiff€receiving€30%€and€Noe€receiving€70%.€€Plaintiff€says€heÐ P  Ðand€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô€originally€agreed€to€a€50/50€split€of€the€commissions,€but€Noe€then€asked€Plaintiff€toÐ @ Ðdesignate€70%€as€Noeððs€share€so€that€he€could€qualify€for€company€recognition€(ChairmanððsÐ 0€ ÐCouncil)€based€on€sales.€€Plaintiff€says€Noe€agreed€to€pay€Plaintiff€the€remaining€20%€from€aÐ  p Ðparticular€future€commission.Ð ` ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€April€1991,€Plaintiff€received€notification€from€New€York€Life€that€a€change€hadÐ ð@ Ðbeen€made€in€the€Collier€term€life€insurance€policies€which€resulted€in€a€deduction€of€$1,147.50€fromÐ à0 Ðhis€sales€commissions.€€Plaintiff€attempted€to€discover€what€change€had€been€made,€and€eventuallyÐ Ð  Ðlearned€that€Noe€had€met€with€the€Colliers€on€several€occasions€and€had€converted€the€Collier€termÐ À! Ðpolicies€to€whole€life€insurance€policies.€€This€conversion€resulted€in€a€new€sales€commission€whichÐ °"  ÐNoe€did€not€share€with€Plaintiff.€€In€August€1991,€when€Plaintiff€complained€to€Noe,€Noe€gaveÐ  #ð! ÐPlaintiff€a€personal€check€for€$1,147.50,€representing€the€reduction€in€Plaintiffððs€commissionsÐ $à" Ðoccasioned€by€the€conversion.€€However,€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô€did€not€share€with€Plaintiff€his€new€commissions€forÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€conversion€of€the€Collier€policies.€€Plaintiff€complained€to€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô,€but€to€no€avail.Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€contacted€New€York€Life€supervisors€and€asked€for€assistance€in€resolvingÐ P( #& Ðhis€commission€dispute€with€Noe.€€On€the€advice€of€a€supervisor,€he€wrote€a€memo€to€Bill€Reid,€NewÐ @)$' ÐYork€Life€Compliance€Officer€in€Atlanta,€on€January€6,€1992.€€In€this€memo,€Plaintiff€detailed€theÐ 0*€%( Ðevents€which€led€to€his€dispute€with€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô,€and€asked€Reid€to€investigate€and€ð ðassure€that€I€receiveÐ  +p&) Ðthe€commissions€due€me.ðð€€Two€weeks€later,€€Plaintiff€resigned€from€his€employment€with€NewÐ ,`'* ÐYork€Life,€effective€February€28,€1992.€€On€February€13,€1992,€Mr.€Reid€responded€to€PlaintiffððsÐ ° Ðcomplaint€by€letter,€which€we€reproduce€verbatim:Ð  ð ÐÌà  àDear€Mr.€Burns:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àThis€is€in€reply€to€your€letter€of€January€6,€1992€concerning€a€conflict€between€youÐ ` ° Ðand€Agent€Bob€Noe.€€I€am€unable€to€assist€you€in€your€efforts€due€to€the€following:ÐP  Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à1.à8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€Company€is€not€a€party€to€agreements€between€Agents€and€hasÐ 0 € Ðno€basis€for€enforcing€said€agreements.Ð p ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à2.à8¸ ` (#` (#àAny€agreement€you€may€have€had€with€Agent€Noe€was€verbal€and,Ð P  Ðtherefore,€prohibits€the€Company€from€even€giving€effective€guidanceÐ ð@  Ðor€direction.Ðà0 ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à3.à8¸ ` (#` (#àYou€indicate€that€the€initial€share€of€70/30€was€based€on€CouncilÐ À ÐQualification€and€not€on€each€Agentððs€involvement.€€Even€if€NumbersÐ ° Ð1€and€2€above€were€not€appropriate,€the€Company€prohibits€sharingÐ  ð Ðof€commissions€for€the€purpose€of€qualifying€for€Council€or€otherÐ à Ðbenefits.€€This€fact€alone€discourages€my€consideration€of€yourÐ €Ð Ðrequest.ÐpÀ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à4.à8¸ ` (#` (#àReceiving€30%€of€the€original€Term€policy€does€not€entitle€you€toÐ P  Ðcommissions€on€the€Converted€permanent€policy.Ð@¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€am€sorry€that€I€do€not€have€better€news;€but,€based€on€the€information,€no€otherÐ  p Ðconclusion€is€possible.Ð`Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àSincerely,Ðð@Ð Ð  Ðà8  àWilliam€C.€ReidÐà0Ð Ð  Ðà  àCompliance€OfficerÐ Ð  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àNot€satisfied€with€this€result,€Plaintiff€filed€this€suit€against€Noe€and€New€York€LifeÐ °"  Ðon€April€12,€1995.€€New€York€Life€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€July€20,€1999.€€OnÐ  #ð! ÐSeptember€21,€1999,€Plaintiff€filed€ð ðPlaintiffððs€Opposition€to€Defendant€New€York€Lifeððs€MotionÐ $à" Ðfor€Summary€Judgment€and€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€Against€Defendant€New€YorkÐ €%Ð # ÐLife.ðð€€On€October€5,€1999,€three€days€before€the€hearing€of€Defendantððs€Motion€by€the€Trial€Court,Ð p&À!$ ÐPlaintiff€submitted€a€ð ðSupplemental€Memorandum,ðð€accompanied€by€the€Affidavit€of€Morgan€G.Ð `'°"% ÐBrenner,€Certified€Life€Underwriter,€of€Havertown,€Pennsylvania.€€Mr.€Brenner€averred€that€he€hasÐ P( #& Ðover€25€yearsðð€experience€in€sales,€management€and€administration€of€insurance.€€He€stated€that€heÐ @)$' Ðhad€reviewed€Plaintiffððs€agent€contract€with€New€York€Life€and€the€Agent€Handbook,€theÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âcorrespondence€between€Plaintiff€and€New€York€Life,€and€various€pleadings€in€this€case.€€He€opinedÐ  +p&) Ðthat€ð ðthe€contract€language€contained€at€paragraph€13(a)(ii)€of€the€Agentððs€Handbook׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€requires€NewÐ ° Ðâ âYork€Life€to€make€a€decision€to€resolve€the€question€or€controversy€as€to€the€split€of€commissionsÐ  ð Ðbetween€plaintiff€and€defendant€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô.ðð€€He€further€opined:Ð à ÐÌà8  à6.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€the€February€13,€1992€letter€from€Mr.€Reid€to€the€plaintiffÐ pÀ Ðconstituted€notification€from€New€York€Life€to€the€plaintiff€that€New€York€LifeÐ ` ° Ðwould€not€make€the€decision€to€resolve€the€commission€dispute€between€these€twoÐ P   Ðagents.€€Based€on€my€review€of€the€above„referenced€documents,€no€decisionÐ @  Ðresolving€this€question€or€controversy€was€ever€made€by€New€York€Life.Ð0 €Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à7.€€I€am€quite€familiar€with€the€standards€of€practice€relative€to€the€splitting€ofÐ `  Ðcommissions,€which€are€industry„wide.€€I€am€also€quite€familiar€with€the€scenario€ofÐ P  Ðterm€life€insurance€policies€that€are€subsequently€converted€to€whole€life€policies.Ðð@ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à8.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€it€is€standard€in€the€life€insurance€industry€that,€whereÐ Ð  Ðcommissions€are€split€on€the€initial€sale€of€term€life€policies,€commissions€on€wholeÐ À Ðlife€conversions€and€any€subsequent€sales€to€those€policyholders€are€also€split€on€theÐ ° Ðsame€basis.РðÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à9.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€it€is€standard€„„€even€commonplace€„„€in€the€life€insuranceÐ €Ð Ðindustry€for€agents€to€enter€into€verbal€agreements€or€contracts€to€split€commissions.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à10.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€New€York€Lifeððs€failure€and/or€refusal€to€resolve€theÐ P  Ðcommission€dispute€between€plaintiff€and€defendant€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô€was€a€breach€of€its€contractÐ @ Ðwith€the€plaintiff.Ð0€Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à11.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€had€New€York€Life€abided€by€its€contract€with€the€plaintiff,Ð ` Ðthat€it€would€have€been€compelled€by€industry€standard€practice€to€decide€in€favorÐ P Ðof€the€plaintiffððs€position,€and€to€enforce€a€commission€split€beneficial€to€theÐ ð@ Ðplaintiff,€relative€to€the€Collier€whole€life€conversions.Ðà0Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à12.€€It€is€my€opinion€that€New€York€Life€refused€to€make€the€decision€in€resolutionÐ À! Ðof€the€commission€dispute€because€it€wished€defendant€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô€to€receive€the€whole€lifeÐ °"  Ðconversion€commissions,€and€to€formally€decide€the€matter€would€have€compelledÐ  #ð! ÐNew€York€Life€to€decide€in€plaintiffððs€favor.Ð$à"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€October€8,€1999,€the€Trial€Court€heard€Defendantððs€Motion€for€SummaryÐ p&À!$ ÐJudgment.€€Based€on€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€the€evidence€of€record€and€arguments€of€counsel,€theÐ `'°"% ÐTrial€Court€granted€Defendantððs€Motion.€€The€Court€further€ordered€that€Plaintiffððs€Motion€forÐ P( #& ÐPartial€Summary€Judgment€with€respect€to€his€claim€for€breach€of€contract€against€New€York€LifeÐ ° Ðwas€therefore€moot,€and€entered€final€judgment€in€favor€of€New€York€Life€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð  ð ÐP.€54.02.€€Plaintiff€took€a€voluntary€non„suit€of€his€claim€against€Ô_ÔNoeÔ_Ô.€€Plaintiff€appeals€the€SummaryÐ à ÐJudgment€granted€to€New€York€Life€on€his€breach€of€contract€claim€only.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionˆÐ ` ° Ðóóó óà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€argues€on€appeal€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€partial€summaryÐ @  Ðjudgment€in€his€favor€since€no€factual€dispute€exists,€and€that€Defendant,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ð 0 € Ðbreached€its€contract€with€him.€€Alternatively,€he€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€grantingÐ  p  Ðsummary€judgment€to€Defendant,€as€there€òòareóó€disputed€material€facts€which€create€a€genuine€issueÐ `  Ðwithin€the€meaning€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€56.€ò ò€€ó óDefendant€responds€that€Plaintiff€has€improperlyÐ P  Ðraised€the€issue€of€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€summary€judgment€to€Plaintiff,Ð ð@  Ðsince€the€Trial€Court€did€not€take€that€Ô_Ôaction.Ô_ÔÐ à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€filed€his€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€after€New€York€Life€moved€forÐ À Ðsummary€judgment.€€The€hearing€on€October€8,€1999€was€to€consider€New€York€Lifeððs€first„filedÐ ° Ðmotion€only.€€The€trial€court€did€not€consider€Plaintiffððs€motion€at€that€time€or€at€any€other€time.€Ð  ð ÐIndeed,€when€the€trial€court€ruled€in€favor€of€New€York€Life€on€its€motion€for€summary€judgment,Ð à Ðthe€court€determined€that€Plaintiffððs€motion€was€moot.ò òòòÐ €Ð ÐÌó óóóà  àà ` àWhile€the€Trial€Courtððs€Judgment€does€contain€language€finding€Plaintiffððs€MotionÐ `° Ðto€be€moot€rather€than€denying€the€Motion,€implicit€in€the€Trial€Courtððs€Judgment,€which€was€basedÐ P  Ðon€the€record€as€a€whole,€including€Plaintiffððs€Motion€and€accompanying€Affidavit,€is€a€finding€thatÐ @ ÐPlaintiffððs€Motion€is€without€merit.€€òòÐ 0€ Ðóóà  àÌà  àà ` àWhen€evaluating€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€Trial€Court€should€considerÐ ` Ðð ð(1)€whether€a€òòfactualóó€dispute€exists;€(2)€whether€the€disputed€fact€is€òòmaterialóó€to€the€outcome€of€theÐ P Ðcase;€€and€(3)€whether€the€disputed€fact€creates€a€òògenuineóó€issue€for€trial.ðð€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2dÐ ð@ Ð208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ô‡ X4‹ XXX¢SÔA€fact€is€ð ðmaterialðð€for€summary€judgment€purposes,€if€it€must€be€decidedÐ à0 Ðin€order€to€resolve€the€substantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motion€is€directed.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð à 0 ÐP.€56.01;€òòLuther€v.€Compton,€óó5€S.W.3d€635€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†X¢SX X X4‹kD#Ô€€The€Court€of€Appeals€must€view€theÐ Ì! Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion€and€all€legitimate€conclusions€ofÐ Ì"  Ðfact€must€be€drawn€in€favor€of€the€opponent.€€òòGray€v.€Amos,€óó869€S.W.2d€925€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Ð ¼# ! ÐNo€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€decisions€granting€summary€judgment€when€they€involveÐ ¬$ü" Ðonly€questions€of€law.€€òòHembree€v.€State,€óó925€S.W.2d€513€(Tenn.€1996);€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€Ð œ%ì # Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAs€stated,€Plaintiff€contends€that€no€factual€dispute€exists€and€if€Defendant€refusedÐ |'Ì"% Ðto€make€a€decision€which€it€was€required€by€contract€to€make,€then€as€a€matter€of€law,€Defendant€hasÐ l(¼#& Ðbreached€it€employment€contract€with€Plaintiff.€€He€contends,€alternatively,€that€there€òòis€óóa€materialÐ \)¬$' Ðdisputed€fact,€which€he€describes€as:Ð L*œ%( Ðâ âÐ <+Œ&) ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà8  àwhether,€what€New€York€Life€in€fact€did,€was€a€decision€or€instead€an€abrogation€ofÐ ° Ðâ âits€contractual€duties.€€In€other€words,€the€question€of€whether€there€is€a€duty€is€forÐ  ð Ðthe€Court;€the€question€of€the€scope€of€that€duty€and€whether€New€York€Life€failedÐ à Ðin€that€duty€is€one€for€the€jury.€€Ð€ÐÐ Ð  ÐÌDefendant€responds€that€New€York€Life€had€no€contractual€duty€to€make€a€decision,€but€once€NewÐ ` ° ÐYork€Life€made€a€decision,€that€decision€was€final.€€We€agree.à È àÐ P   Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case,€and€find€no€genuine€issue€ofÐ 0 € Ðmaterial€fact€in€dispute.€€There€is€no€dispute€about€what€New€York€Life€did€in€response€to€PlaintiffððsÐ  p  Ðrequest€for€assistance.€€The€resolution€of€the€case€turns€on€the€interpretation€of€the€employmentÐ `  Ðcontract€between€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€and€whether€Defendantððs€undisputed€response,€i.e.,€Mr.Ð P  ÐReidððs€letter€to€Plaintiff,€satisfied€the€terms€of€that€contract.€€The€interpretation€of€a€contract€is€aÐ ð@  Ðquestion€of€law,€for€which€our€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð à0  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòÔ_ÔEyringÔ_Ô€v.€East€Tennessee€Baptist€Hosp.,€óó950€Ô‡ X4‹ XXX¢SÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¢SX X X4‹ÉO#Ô€354,€358€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1997).€€In€construing€contracts,€the€words€expressing€the€partiesðð€intention€should€be€given€theÐ Ð  Ðusual,€natural€and€ordinary€meaning.€€òòóóWhere€there€is€no€ambiguity,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€court€to€applyÐ À Ðto€the€words€used€their€ordinary€meaning€and€neither€party€is€to€be€favored€in€their€construction.€Ð ° ÐòòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Jordan,€óó16€Ô‡ X4‹ XXX¢SÔS.W.3dÔ#†X¢SX X X4‹×Q#Ô€777,€779€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€employment€contract€between€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€requires€Plaintiff€to€abideÐ à Ðby€the€terms€of€the€Agentððs€Handbook.€€The€Handbook€states€at€paragraph€13(a)(ii),€that€ð ðif€thereÐ €Ð Ðis€any€question€or€controversy€between€agents€as€to€who€is€entitled€to€a€particular€commission,€theÐ pÀ ÐCompanyððs€decision€thereon€shall€be€final.ðð€€The€Handbook,€by€its€plain€language,€obligates€theÐ `° Ðagent€to€accept€the€Companyððs€decision€as€final.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€Company€determined€thatÐ P  ÐPlaintiffððs€receipt€of€30%€of€the€original€Collier€Term€policy€did€not€entitle€him€to€commissions€onÐ @ Ðthe€Collier€Converted€permanent€policy.€€Mr.€Brennerððs€Affidavit€states€that€ð ðindustry€standardÐ 0€ Ðpracticeðð€mandates€a€different€result€than€the€one€reached€by€Defendant.€€While€we€have€seriousÐ  p Ðreservations€whether€Mr.€Brennerððs€Affidavit€and€opinions€are€admissible,€Mr.€Brennerððs€opinion,Ð ` Ðeven€taken€as€true,€would€not€change€the€result€in€this€case.€€Defendantððs€decision€was€that€PlaintiffÐ  P Ðis€not€entitled€to€a€commission€on€the€conversion€of€the€term€life€insurance€policies€to€whole€lifeÐ ð @ Ðinsurance€policies.€€Defendantððs€decision€is€final,€and€there€the€matter€ends.€€Defendant€rendered€aÐ à!0 Ðdecision,€just€not€the€one€Plaintiff€wanted.€€As€a€matter€of€law,€there€was€no€breach€of€contract€byÐ Ð"   ÐDefendant.€€Accordingly,€the€Trial€Court€properly€found€that€Defendant€is€entitled€to€SummaryÐ À#! ÐJudgment.€€Ð °$ " ÐÌà@FF%ìàÔ‡X4‹ XXX¢SÔà@@HH%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ &à!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ h(¸#& ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,Ô#†X¢SX XX4‹8Y#ÔÔ‡X4‹ XXX¢SÔ€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ T)¤$' Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€Rhea€E.€Burns,Ð @*%( ÐJr.,€and€his€surety.Ô#†X¢SX XX4‹wZ#ÔÐ ,+|&) ÐÐ ,h'* ЇÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð @  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ 0 € Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà  àà ` à