WPC 2J62qKvca!fQ{o{vr+6ҟ=j,Ƭe>w6Zg]&ETT1UZY'lHg+kiRO%º6u_sX#o?8&>PcvEq YORs=Sv :wυ6?M@!߀ 1ZDj>+5Et8;Gv%sZ'Ak.mqwͺmIe= X;\"s X:% [R{˄rA|V%rbzy߿^V04F Z 0(i  w@  UN 0lD 0D UN B U:1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UBk % B D3 0D AOG 0D\ D/ Bw#%3|xH($ 56{78E9:D;<D=>Ӏ  $    1       XPAXXX &f&X XPA 4 TheappellantisexemptfromthisrequirementpursuanttoT.C.A.506106.  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  XFXXX ] X XF Ad   FILED    ]   December17,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d&&&&'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7 XXdd7XPAXXXXXPAԀ@j j  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  >l *6&"h 8 `E tt06H lߛ HH(#(#>@ ATKNOXVILLE REVISDALEDUBBERLY,    )C/ANO.03A019808   CH00254 4    <     ) (#(#HH 4 PlaintiffAppellee, <     )McMINNCHANCERY    4    <     )v. 4    <     )HON.EARLH.HENLEY,    4    <     )CHANCELLORLYNNTRUCKSERVICES,INC.,  )   d/b/aE.D.S.OFATHENS, <     )   4    <     ) 4 Defendant/Crosscomplainant  )   4 Appellee,  <     )   4    <     )and 4    <     )   4    <     )CLAUDEANDBETTYTHOMPSON,  )   4    <     ) 4 Defendants/Crossdefendants  )AFFIRMED   4 Appellants.(CLAUDE    )AND   4 THOMPSONonly). <   )REMANDED   ROBERTJ.UHORCHUK,SPICER,FLYNN&RUDSTROM,PLLC,Chattanooga,forAppellee,LynnTruckService,Inc.RANDYG.ROGERS,Athens,forDefendantsAppellants.@% OPINION  -&&  4    <      D   Franks,J. 4  PlaintiffDubberlybroughtsuitforworkerscompensationbenefits,anddefendantLynnTruckService( Lynn)settledtheclaim.TheTrialCourtthenheldthatdefendantClaudeThompsonwasobligatedtocompensateLynnfortheamountofthissettlementwithplaintiffDubberly.Thompsonhasappealed. 4  ThompsonhademployedDubberlyasatruckdriver,andThompsonand ;34 LynnenteredintoanagreementunderwhichThompsonwastoprovideatruckanddrivertocompleteadeliveryforLynn.DubberlywasinjuredwhilemakingthedeliveryandfiledsuitagainsttheThompsonsandLynn,seekingworkerscompensationbenefits.LynnfiledacrosscomplaintagainsttheThompsons,allegingtheywereobligatedundertheagreementtoprovideworkerscompensationcoverage.Ultimately,theTrialCourtenteredjudgmentagainstClaudeThompsonfor$9,164.80infavorofLynn. 4  WeconcludetheTrialCourtproperlyenteredjudgmentinfavorofLynn.ThompsonsobligationarisesfromhiscontractwithLynn:0 4 0 4(#4(#TheCONTRACTOR[Appellant]shallpayallthecompensationdueofeverydriver/employeewhichinclude[sic],butisnotlimitedto,Workmenscompensationinsurancecosts...  (# (# 0 4 0 4(#4(#[T]heCONTRACTOR,athisownexpense,shallprovideWorkmansCompensationInsurancecoveringCONTRACTORandallindividualsemployedbyCONTRACTOR...  (# (# Thompsonarguesthat,independentofthiscontract,hewouldhavenoobligationtopayworkerscompensation.  #  1      ׀Inthiscase,however,hevoluntarilyassumedthe " obligationtoprovidesuchinsurance. 4  Thompsonarguesthecontractisambiguousandshouldbeconstruedagainstthedrafter,Lynn.Ambiguouslanguageinacontractisgenerallyconstruedagainstthedrafter.ChristLutheranChurchv.EquitableChurchBuilders,Inc.,909 *## S.W.2d451(Tenn.App.1995).Acontractisambiguous whenitisofuncertainmeaningandmayfairlybeunderstoodinmorewaysthanone.EmpressHealthand .'' BeautySpar,Inc.V.Turner,503S.W.2d188,190191(Tenn.1973). Astrained 0)) constructionmaynotbeplacedonthelanguageusedtofindambiguitywherenoneexists.Id.At191. 4--  4  Thecontractisthiscaseisnotambiguous.Thompsonarguesthatsince 6// hehadnostatutoryobligationtoprovideworkerscompensationinsurance,nopaymentswere due.Theagreement,however,imposesacontractualobligationtoprovidethisinsurance.Wherethelanguageofacontractisplainandunambiguous,itisthecourtsdutytointerpretanenforceitaswritten.BookMartofFlorida,Inc.v. (  NationalBookWarehouse,Inc.,917S.W.2d691(Tenn.App.1995). 0(   4  Thompson3also3arguesthatLynnwasnotentitledtorecoverfromhimbaseduponT.C.A.506113.Underthestatute [a]nyprincipal,orintermediatecontractor,orsubcontractorwhopayscompensationundertheforegoingprovisionsmayrecovertheamountpaid,fromanypersonwho,independentlyofthissection,wouldhavebeenliabletopaycompensationtotheinjuredemployee....T.C.A.506113(b).Thissectionappliesonly incaseswheretheinjuryoccurredon.,in,orabout,thepremisesonwhichtheprincipalcontractorhasundertakentoexecuteworkorwhichareotherwiseundertheprincipalcontractorscontrolormanagement.T.C.A.506113(d). 4  4Lynn465t566T687HOM789hompsonalso9arguesthatsincethisaccidentoccurredataplan::twhereDubberlywasmakingadelivery,itdoesnotfallwithintheambitofT.C.A.506113(d).InDavisv.J.&B.MotorLines,245S.W.2d769(Tenn.1952),theSupreme )"" Courtinterpretedidenticallanguageinanearlierversionofthestatute.A;;<t<=t=ruckdriverwasinjuredinanaccidentwhilehaulingfreightonthehighway.Thecourtheldthatthehighwaywasthe premisesonwhichtheprincipalcontractorhadundertakentoexecuteworkandtheinjurysustainedwasthereforecompensable.Inthiscase,thecontractcontemplateddeliverytotheplantwhereDubberlywasinjured.Hewasinjuredwhilemakingthedelivery.Thus,theinjurymeetstherequirementsofT.C.A.506113(d). 4  ThompsoncorrectlynotesthatDaviswasdistinguishedinLongv. 922 StatelinesSys.,inc.,738S.W.2d622(Tenn.1985).InLong,thecourtdeterminedthat  T.C.A.506113didnotapplytoinjuriessufferedbyacommercialtruckdriver.Thecourtsdecision,however,wasbasedonthe1976amendmentstoT.C.A.50-6-106(1),renderingitinapplicabletothecommercialtruckingscenario.Inthiscase,however,Thompsonvoluntarilyagreedtoprovideworkerscompensationinsurance.Long,therefore,isdistinguishable.WeconcludetheTrialCourtcorrectly 0(  determinedThompsonwasliablefortheamountofthesettlement,andweaffirmitsjudgment. 4  Thecauseisremandedwiththecostoftheappealassessedtoappellant. 4  4    <     __________________________ d\  4    <     HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.