WPC]  ܥCgb8~fqijL 7#5NPǎeZ!+iTʸx)1&B_JC R bSJ<@pd er~YE]V3|^%'P7,j>:ZcAoJbc/),; H;eHTgFI #eqD&{xaK]a"mYG \,\[Vw*O:L8fu}=:Tjk$QX†1G,ϑZƥܨ :0Wh-W M,zM7P$zK'x6NF2hcbI}Sqpۯkc봎H_vFSW sz70j£s~{*²b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m UN  6    0DNNx E#~<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<bRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 0ZZZZ BEE 0b D3 D-9 0Kff AS 0 0Dn A1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  R=$      1    _ClarenceBussell,whowastheownerofthevehicleLeamonBussellwasdrivingatthetimeofthecollision,  isnowdeceased.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   underinsuredLEAMONBUSSELLTroutman COA P.J.MowlesHeltonPineville UIMBussellsGoodvilleBorrorKolisLipscombeIntegonclear[ly unambiguous[ly R=$      2    _TheseniorMr.Fleetsuedbasedupontheallegationthat hehaslosttheservicesofhisson.\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0 R=$      4    _Theplaintiffsdamagesclearlyexceed$25,000.  R=$      3    _Ithasbeenheldthat stacking,asaconcept,alsoappliestoasituationwheretherearemultiplepolicieseach  coveringaseparatevehicle.See Jones_v._Ԁ_Mulkey_ ,620S.W.2d498,499(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).   - -(|G2=$ !.8F-dd8         0   d(|3?q$ !.8F-dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?q$ !.8F-dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8F-dd8     _  F-8qXXdd8  @ T|F-INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#F-T| #Ԉ &   August10,2004Session L XqXF- #F-XXq#BRADLEYC.FLEET,etal.v.LEAMONBUSSELL,etal.XqXF-  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforClaiborneCounty  J @@No.8586ConradE.Troutman,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302788_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDAUGUST31,_2004_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<|` A }     BradleyC.Fleetandhisfather,HerbertC.Fleet,Jr.,residentsofthestateofVirginia,sued x  _tortfeasors_ԀLeamonBussellandClarenceBussell,residentsofClaiborneCounty,seekingdamages d arisingoutofanautomobileaccidentinClaiborneCountyinvolvingvehiclesdrivenbytheplaintiff P BradleyC.FleetandthedefendantLeamonBussell#F-XXqx#XqXF-.Theplaintiffscausedprocesstobeservedupon < theiruninsuredmotoristcarrier,IntegonGeneralInsurance( Integon).Thetrialcourtgrantedthe (x plaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgmentagainstIntegon,findingthatVirginialaw!whichis d indisputablyapplicableinthiscase!permitsthestackingofuninsuredmotorist/underinsured P motorist( UM/UIM)coverage.Integonappeals.Wereversethetrialcourtsdecreegrantingthe < plaintiffssummaryjudgment.Further,wegrant_Integon_smotionforsummaryjudgmentand ( dismisstheplaintiffsclaimagainstIntegon.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt  Reversed;CaseRemanded     #F-Xq#XqX.F-CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,P.J., ` andSharonG.Lee,J.,joined. L  LindaJ.HamiltonMowles,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,IntegonGeneralInsurance. $"t! PhilipL.Boyd,Rogersville,Tennessee,andJeffreyW.Helton,Pineville,Kentucky,forthe #L# appellees,BradleyC.FleetandHerbertC.Fleet,Jr. $8 $ l  OPINION #F-XXq #XqXF- &"& #F-XXq #XqXF-    I.#F-XXq@ #XqXF- (#( k   OnJuly16,2000,BradleyC.Fleet,whowasthenaminor,wasinvolvedinamotorvehicle p*%* accidentwithLeamonBussell.Atthetimeoftheaccident,thevehicledrivenbyBradleyC.Fleet \+&+ wascoveredbyanautomobileinsurancepolicyissuedbyIntegoninthestateofVirginia;thepolicy H,', alsocoveredanotheroftheFleetfamilysvehicles.ThepolicywasissuedtoHerbertC.Fleet,Jr.; 4-(-V _BradleyC.Fleetwasidentifiedasadriveronthedeclarationspage.Thepolicywaseffectivefrom  October6,1999,throughOctober6,2000.ThepolicyhadUM/UIMcoveragelimitsof$25,000per  person.    OnJanuary31,2001,theplaintiffsfiledacomplaintinthetrialcourtagainstLeamonBussell ` andClarenceBussell  #  1      ,seekingdamagesforinjuriesresultingfromtheaccident.HerbertC.Fleet, L  Jr.sindividualclaimisderivativeinnature. #  2      ׀Theplaintiffsalsosecuredserviceofprocesson 8  Integon,initscapacityastheplaintiffsUM/UIMcarrier. $ t   TheBussellshadanautomobileinsurancepolicyissuedbyAllstateInsuranceCompany,with  L  liabilitycoverageof$25,000perperson.Ultimately,Allstatesettledwiththeplaintiffsforitspolicy  8  limits. $    OnSeptember7,2001,Integonfileditsmotionforsummaryjudgment,allegingthatits   policylimitswereidenticaltothoseoftheBussellspolicy,andthat,accordingly,Tennesseelaw   doesnotprovideforliabilityonthepartofIntegon.Inresponse,theplaintiffsfiledtheirownmotion   forsummaryjudgment,arguing(1)thatthisisaVirginiaissuedinsurancepolicyand,hence, p Virginialawappliestothefactsofthiscase;(2)thatVirginialawpermitsthe stackingofcoverage, \ i.e.,therightofaninsured,whohasUM/UIMcoverageonmultiplevehiclesinasinglepolicy, #  3      ׀to H addeachvehiclescoverageandtherebymultiplythecoverageavailabletoaninsuredunderthe 4 policy;and(3)thatthestackingofcoverageinthiscasemeansthattheyshouldbeentitledtothe  p benefitof$50,000inUM/UIMcoveragesincetheplaintiffshadtwoinsuredvehiclesontheirpolicy,  \ eachofwhichwasinsuredfor$25,000. #  4       H   InDecember,2002,thetrialcourtenteredanorder,grantingtheplaintiffsmotionfor   summaryjudgmentanddenyingIntegonsmotion,holdingthatVirginialawwasapplicableinthe   instantcase,andthatVirginiapermittedthestackingofUM/UIMcoverage.Whilethetrialcourt  reservedallothermattersforhearingatalaterdate,thecourtenteredanagreedorderonOctober20,  2003,pursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.54.02,makingtheDecember,2002,orderafinalorderforthe  purposeofappeal.Fromthisorder,Integonappeals. l   X    II.  Q  Indecidingwhetheragrantofsummaryjudgmentisappropriate,courtsaretodetermine XlXXXq if  thepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththe t affidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingparty ` isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Courts musttakethestrongest L  legitimateviewoftheevidence#XqXX Xl#Ԁinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesin 8  favorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,21011 $ t (Tenn.1993)(citationsomitted).  `   Sincesummaryjudgmentpresentsapurequestionoflaw,ourreviewisdenovowithno  8  presumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsjudgment. Gonzalesv.AlmanConstr.Co. ,857 $  S.W.2d42,44(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).     III.   /!  ThepertinentprovisionsoftheplaintiffsUM/UIMcoverageareasfollows: p e!8  8`    PARTIV!UNINSUREDMOTORISTINSURANCE4` x` x   8 @ 8@`    ***  \ i"8  8`    I.UNINSUREDMOTORISTSCOVERAGE4` x` x 8  8`   (DamagesforBodilyInjuryandPropertyDamage)  ` x` x 8  8`   ThecompanywillpayinaccordancewithSection38.22206ofthe  CodeofVirginiaandallActsamendatorythereoforsupplementary  thereto,allsumswhichtheinsuredorhislegalrepresentativeshallbe l legallyentitledtorecoverasdamagesfromtheowneroroperatorof X  anuninsuredmotorvehiclebecauseofbodilyinjurysustainedbythe D! insuredorpropertydamage,causedbyaccidentandarisingoutofthe 0"  ownership,maintenanceoruseofsuchuninsuredmotorvehicle.In #l! accordancewithSection38.22206oftheCodeofVirginia,the $X" companyisalsoobligatedtomakepaymentforbodilyinjuryor $D # propertydamagecausedbytheoperationoruseofanunderinsured %0!$ motorvehicle,asdefinedbelow,totheextentthemotorvehicleis &"% underinsured.'#&` x` x   *** )$( '  h+&* [8  8`    III.LIMITSOFLIABILITY` x` x  8  8`   Regardlessofthenumberof...motorvehiclestowhichthis  insuranceapplies,t` x` x 8  8`   (a)Ifthescheduleordeclarationsindicatessplitlimitsofliability,the L  limitofliabilityforbodilyinjurystatedasapplicableto each 8  personisthelimitofthecompanysliabilityforalldamagesbecause $ t ofbodilyinjurysustainedbyonepersonastheresultofanyone  ` accidentand,subjecttotheaboveprovisionrespecting eachperson  L  thelimitofliabilityforbodilyinjurystatedasapplicableto each  8  accident,isthetotallimitofthecompanysliabilityforalldamages $  becauseofbodilyinjurysustainedbytwoormorepersonsasthe   resultofanyoneaccident.... ` x` x   ***   h,8  8`   (c)Thecompanyshallnotbeobligatedtomakeanypaymentbecause \ ofbodilyinjuryorpropertydamagetowhichthisinsuranceapplies H andwhicharisesoutoftheownership,maintenanceoruseofan 4 underinsuredmotorvehicleuntilafterthelimitsofliabilityunderall  p bodilyinjuryandpropertydamageliabilitybondsorinsurance  \ policiesrespectivelyapplicableatthetimeoftheaccidenttodamages H becauseofbodilyinjuryorbecauseofpropertydamagehavebeen 4 exhaustedbypaymentofjudgmentsorsettlements. ` x` x   ***  z/  8 ` (d)Anydamagespayableunderthisendorsementbecauseofbodily  injuryorpropertydamagesustainedinanaccidentbyapersonwho l isaninsuredunderthisinsuranceshallbereducedbyallsumspaid X  becauseofsuchbodilyinjuryorpropertydamagebyoronbehalfof D! theowneroroperatorofanuninsuredmotorvehicle.Thisparagraph 0"  (d)(ofIII.LimitsofLiability)doesnotaffecttheprovisions #l! applicabletounderinsuredmotoristscoverageassetforthinIII. $X" LimitsofLiabilityparagraph(c)ofthisendorsement$D #` x` x @  '***. &"% 8  8`    V.DEFINITIONS(#'` x` x    *** |*%)  h+&*   8  8`    Insuredmotorvehicle meansamotorvehicleregisteredin  Virginiawithrespecttowhichthebodilyinjuryandpropertydamage  liabilitycoverageofthepolicyappliesbutshallnotincludeavehicle  whilebeingusedwithoutthepermissionoftheowner;x` x` x   *** P  48  8`    Uninsuredmotorvehicle means:( x` x` x   8 @ 8@`   ***  T  58  8`   (d)anunderinsuredmotorvehicle., ` x` x 8  8`   Amotorvehicleisunderinsuredwhen,andtotheextentthat,thetotal   amountofbodilyinjuryandpropertydamagecoverageapplicableto   theoperationoruseofthemotorvehicleandavailableforpayment   forsuchbodilyinjuryorpropertydamage,includingallbondsor x depositsofmoneyorsecuritiesmadepursuanttoArticle15of d Chapter3ofTitle46.2oftheCodeofVirginia(Section46.2435et P seq.),islessthanthetotalamountofuninsuredmotoristcoverage < affordedanypersoninjuredasaresultoftheoperationoruseofthe (x vehicle.d` x` x (Capitalizationandboldtypeinoriginal;emphasisadded).Thedefinitionof underinsuredmotor < vehicleintheIntegonpolicyisidenticaltothedefinitionofthisconceptfoundintheVirginiaCode. ( SeeVa.CodeAnn.38.22206(B)(2001).    IV.  :  BeforeaddressingIntegonsissueonappealandbeforereachingtheotherissuesraisedby t theplaintiffs,wefirstmustaddresstheplaintiffscontentionthatIntegon wasnotmadeaparty[to `  thisaction]andhadnorighttoproceedinitsownname.Theplaintiffsbasethiscontentiononthe L! factthat,whentheynamedIntegonintheircomplaint,theynotedinthecomplaintscaptionthat 8"  Integonwasnamed fornoticepurposesonly.Thus,sotheargumentgoes,Integonhasnorightto $#t! appealthetrialcourtsjudgment,and,asthe truedefendants,i.e.,theBussells,didnotappeal,the $`" appealshouldbedismissed.Wedisagree. $L #   Tenn.CodeAnn.5671206(a)(2000)providesasfollows: &$"% 8  8`   Anyinsuredintendingtorelyonthecoveragerequiredbythispart (#' shall,ifanyactionisinstitutedagainsttheownerandoperatorofan )$( uninsuredmotorvehicle,serveacopyoftheprocessuponthe *%) insurancecompanyissuingthepolicyinthemannerprescribedby p+&* law,asthoughsuchinsurancecompanywereapartydefendant.Such  companyshallthereafterhavetherighttofilepleadingsandtake  otheractionallowablebylawinthenameoftheownerandoperator  oftheuninsuredmotorvehicleorinitsownname;....t` x` x (Emphasisadded).Thisstatuteisacompleteanswertotheplaintiffsposition.Itauthorizesa L  UM/UIMcarriertodefend initsownname.ThisisexactlywhatIntegondidwhenitfiled 8  pleadingsinitsownname.Itacted,pursuanttothestatute, asthough,seeTenn.CodeAnn.56 $ t 71206(a),itwerea partydefendant.Thestatutedoesnotrequiremore.Thereisnothinginthe  ` UM/UIMstatutoryschemethatevenremotelysuggeststhataUM/UIMcarriermustformallyapply  L  tothecourttobemade,ineffect,aparty.WhileIntegonisnottechnicallyadefendant,itisaparty.  8  TheplaintiffsbroughtIntegonintothelawsuitbecausetheywantedtoforcethecompanytopay $  themundertheirpolicysUM/UIMcoverage.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemthisrelief.Itisillogical   toarguethatanentity,whoisinvolvedinlitigationpursuanttoastatutorygrantofauthorityandwho   willberequiredtomakeamonetarypaymenttoaplaintiffifatrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed,is   notapartyforthepurposeofappealingthatadversejudgment.Integonsappealisproperlybefore   us. p   V. H F  Integonraisesonlyoneissueonappeal,arguingthatthetrialcourterredinholdingthatitwas  p liableundertheplaintiffsUM/UIMcoverage.WeagreewithIntegon.  \   Wheninterpretingcontractsofinsurance,wemust,asageneralrule,applythesamerules 4 ofconstructionasareapplicabletoothertypesofcontracts.See McKimmv.Bell ,790S.W.2d526,   527(Tenn.1990).Suchcontractsaretobeinterpretedastheyarewritten!absentanyfraudor   mistake!andwordsinthepolicymustbegiventheirplainandordinarymeaning. Swansonv.Mid  SouthTitleIns.Corp. ,692S.W.2d415,419(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Thelawiswellsettledinthis  statethatanyuncertaintiesorambiguitiesinaninsurancepolicy mustbeconstruedstronglyagainst  theinsurerandinfavoroftheinsured. TravelersIns.Co.v.AetnaCas.&Sur.Co. ,491S.W.2d l 363,366(Tenn.1973).Theinterpretationofacontractpresentsaquestionoflawforthecourt. X   UnionPlantersCorp.v.Harwell ,578S.W.2d87,92(Tenn.Ct.App.1978). D! 8        BecausetheinsurancepolicyintheinstantcasewasissuedinthestateofVirginiatoVirginia #l! residents,thatstateslaws!andnotthoseofTennessee!controltheresolutionofthiscase.Onthis $X" appeal,Integondoesnotargueotherwise.UnlikeTennessee,Virginiapermitsthestackingof $D # UM/UIMcoverage, unlessclearandunambiguouslanguageexistsonthefaceofthepolicyto %0!$ preventsuchmultiplecoverage. GoodvilleMut.Cas.Co.v.Borror ,275S.E.2d625,627(Va. &"% 1981)(hereinafterreferredtoas  Borror ).Accordingly,inordertodetermineifstackingis '#& permittedintheinstantcase,wemustexaminethelanguageofthepolicytodetermineifthereis (#'  clearandunambiguouslanguage...onthefaceofthepolicytopreventsuchmultiplecoverage. )$(  Id . |*%)  h+&*   TheunreportedOhiocaseof Bautistav.Kolis addressesafactualscenarioandaninsurance  policyessentiallyidenticaltothefactsandpolicyinthecaseatbar,and,thus,isquiteinstructive.  In Bautista ,theplaintiffswereinjuredwhentheirvehiclecollidedwithavehicledrivenbythe  defendant;thecollisionoccurredinOhio. Bautistav.Kolis ,No.02CA70,2002WL32060489, t at*1(OhioCt.App.,filedMarch13,2002).Theplaintiffs,whowereVirginiaresidents,hadan ` automobileinsurancepolicyissuedbyStateFarminthestateofVirginia. Id. Thepolicy,which L  coveredfourvehicles,hadUM/UIMpolicylimitsof$50,000perpersonand$100,000peraccident. 8   Id. Thedefendant,anOhioresident,hadaninsurancepolicythroughanothercompanywithpolicy $ t limitsthatwereidenticaltothoseoftheplaintiffsUM/UIMlimits. Id. Theplaintiffsfiledsuit  ` againstboththedefendantandStateFarm,ultimatelysettlingtheirclaimagainstthetortfeasorfor  L  thepolicylimitsof$50,000. Id. Atthispoint,theplaintiffandStateFarmeachfiledamotionfor  8  summaryjudgment. Id. Thetrialcourtultimatelyfoundfortheplaintiffs,andStateFarmappealed. $   Id.      BecausetheinsurancepolicywasissuedinVirginiatoVirginiaresidents,theOhioCourtof   AppealsrecognizedtheapplicabilityofVirginialaw. Id. ,at*2.QuotingtheVirginiaCode,the |  courtnotedthatavehicleisconsideredunderinsuredwhenthetotalamountofcoverageavailable h topayforthebodilyinjuryorpropertydamageofanotherpartyislessthanthetotalamountofthe T injuredpartysUM/UIMcoverage. Id. ,at*3;seealsoVa.CodeAnn.38.22206(B).Further,the @ courtstatedthelongstandingruleinVirginiathat, whenasingleautomobileinsurancepolicy ,| coversmultiplevehicles,thentheUM/UIMcoverageprovidedoneachvehiclemaybestackedto h determinewhetheramotoristisunderinsured. Bautista ,2002WL32060489,at*3;see T  Cunninghamv.Ins.Co.ofN.Am. ,189S.E.2d832(Va.1972); Lipscombev.Sec.Ins.Co. ,189 D S.E.2d320(Va.1972). Inordertopreventthistypeofstacking,apolicymustplainly,explicitly 0 andunmistakablyprohibitit. Bautista ,2002WL32060489,at*3(quoting Cunningham ,189  S.E.2dat836).    Thecourtin Bautista thenturnedtothe Borror case,whichforgedabrightlinerulefor  determiningstackingcoverageinUM/UIMcases: | 8  8`   The Borror courtfoundthislanguage,particularlythephrase T   regardlessofthenumberofmotorvehiclestowhichthisinsurance @! applies, isclearandunambiguousandrequirestheconstructionthat ,"|  stackingisnotpermissible. Id. at[628].Thus,the regardlessof #h! thenumberofmotorvehiclestowhichthisinsuranceapplies $T" languageplainly,explicitlyandunmistakablyprohibitsstackingof $@ # theUM/UIMcoveragesinasinglepolicyasamatterofVirginialaw.%,!$` x` x 8  8`   Thedistinguishingcharacteristicbetween Lipscombe and Borror is '#& thelanguageatthebeginningofthelimitationofliability[i.e.,the (#'  regardlessofthenumberofmotorvehicleslanguage]whichwas )$( presentin Borror andabsentin Lipscombe .Whenasinglepolicy x*%) coversmultiplevehiclesanddoesnotcontainthatorsimilar d+&* language,thenthepolicyislikethatin Lipscombe andtheUM/UIM  coveragesoneachvehiclewithinthepolicymustbestacked.  However,whenthesamekindofpolicycontainslanguagesimilarto  thatin Borror ,thenthatformofstackingisprohibited.t` x` x  Bautista ,2002WL32060489,at*4. L    Applyingtheforegoingtothecasebeforeit,thecourtin Bautista statedthattheplaintiffs $ t hadoneinsurancepolicythatcoveredmultiplevehicles,andthat separatebutunequalpremiums  ` werechargedforeachvehicle. Id. TheplaintiffsUM/UIMpolicyin Bautista containedthe  L   regardlessofthenumberofmotorvehicleslanguageandcontainedalimitationthatwasidentical  8  tothatanalyzedin Borror . Bautista ,2002WL32060489,at*4.The Bautista courtconcludedas $  follows:   8  8`   [Thepolicy]providesthesameamountofUM/UIMcoveragetothe   [plaintiffs]regardlessofthenumberofmotorvehiclesinsuredbythe   policy.AstheVirginiaSupremeCourtheldin Borror ,thislanguage p clearlyandunambiguouslyprohibitsthestackingoftheUM/UIM \ coveragesavailableonthemultiplevehiclescontainedwithinthis H singlepolicy.Inaddition,like Borror ,separatebutunequal 4 premiumswerechargedforeachvehicleissuedunderthepolicy.  p Thus,thetrialcourterredwhenitallowedthosecoveragestobe  \ stacked.Astheamountof[thedefendants]insuranceisthesameas H thetotalamountofthe[plaintiffs]UM/UIMcoverage,[the 4 defendant]wasnotunderinsuredasdefinedbyVirginialaw.   Accordingly,StateFarmsassignmentoferrorismeritorious. ` x` x  Id. ,at*5.    Turningtothecaseatbar,webeginbyreiteratingthestrikingsimilaritiesbetweenitandthe l  Bautista case.Inbothcases,theplaintiffssettledwiththeliabilityinsurancecarrierforthelimits X  ofthedefensesinsurancepolicy,whichwas$25,000intheinstantcase;bothsetsofplaintiffs D! UM/UIMpolicieshadpolicylimitsthatwerethesameasthelimitsofthedefensesrespective 0"  liabilityinsurancecoverage,whichwas$25,000inthecaseatbar;bothsetsofplaintiffshadasingle #l! policythatinsuredmultiplevehiclesandbothpaidseparatepremiumsforeachvehicleinsured;and $X" bothUM/UIMpoliciescontaintheidentical,cruciallanguageof regardlessofthenumberofmotor $D # vehiclestowhichthisinsuranceapplies.Asthecourtfoundin Bautista ,wefindthatthelanguage %0!$ ofIntegonspolicy,i.e.,thelanguage! [r]egardlessofthenumberofmotorvehiclestowhichthis &"% insuranceappliesinthe LimitsofLiabilitysectionofthe UninsuredMotoristCoverage! '#&  clear[ly]andunambiguous[ly]preventsstacking.Whenreadtogether,thepertinentlanguagereads (#' asfollows: )$(   |*%)   8 ` Regardlessofthenumberof...motorvehiclestowhichthis   insuranceapplies,...thelimitofliabilityforbodilyinjurystatedas  applicableto eachpersonisthelimitofthecompanysliability` x` x   8 ` ...t` x` x (Emphasisadded).Thislanguagemeansexactlywhatitsays.Thelimitforeachpersonis$25,000. L    BecauseweholdthattheplaintiffscannotstacktheirUM/UIMcoverages,theyareonly $ t entitledto$25,000ofUM/UIMcoverage,ratherthanthe$50,000ofcoveragearguedforbythem.  `   Turningtothedefinitionof underinsured,wefindthatapartyisunderinsuredonlywhen  8  8  8`   thetotalamountofbodilyinjuryandpropertydamagecoverage   applicabletotheoperationoruseofthemotorvehicleandavailable   forpaymentforsuchbodilyinjuryorpropertydamage...isless   thanthetotalamountofuninsuredmotoristcoverageaffordedany   personinjuredasaresultoftheoperationoruseofthevehicle.p` x` x (Emphasisadded).Intheinstantcase,theBussellsliabilitycoveragelimitsis$25,000,whichis H equalto,notlessthan,theamountofUM/UIMcoverageavailableundertheplaintiffspolicy. 4 Accordingly,theBussells,bydefinition,arenotunderinsured,andtheplaintiffsarenotentitledto  p receiveanyportionoftheirUM/UIMcoverage.Thisholdingisconsistentwiththe Bautista holding,  \ inwhichthedefendantspolicylimitsequaledtheplaintiffsUM/UIMpolicylimits. H   V.    @ cx  Theplaintiffsraisetwoadditionalissuesforourconsideration.First,theycontendthatthe  languageoftheIntegonpolicydoesnotpermitasetoffofthe$25,000theplaintiffsreceivedfrom  theBussellsagainsttheplaintiffsUM/UIMcoverage.Insupportoftheirposition,theplaintiffsrely  uponthefollowingitalicizedlanguagefoundintheUM/UIMsectionoftheirpolicy: l 8  8`    III.LIMITSOFLIABILITYD!` x` x   8 @ 8@`    *** #l! z8  8`   (d)Anydamagespayableunderthisendorsementbecauseofbodily $D # injuryorpropertydamagesustainedinanaccidentbyapersonwho %0!$ isaninsuredunderthisinsuranceshallbereducedbyallsumspaid &"% becauseofsuchbodilyinjuryorpropertydamagebyoronbehalfof '#& theowneroroperatorofanuninsuredmotorvehicle.Thisparagraph (#' (d)(ofIII.LimitsofLiability)doesnotaffecttheprovisions )$( applicabletounderinsuredmotoristscoverageassetforthinIII. |*%) LimitsofLiabilityparagraph(c)ofthisendorsement.h+&*` x` x [        `     h      p   (Capitalizationandboldtypeinoriginal;emphasisadded).Wedisagreewiththeplaintiffs  contention.    Theplaintiffsarguethatsincethefirstsentenceofsubsection(d)requiresareductionand ` sincethesecondsentencesaysthatthe reductionlanguagedoesnotapplywhendealingwith L  underinsuredmotoristscoverage,thatthisprovisionmustmeanthatthereisnoreductionwhen 8  dealingwithan underinsuredmotorist.Theproblemwiththisargumentisthatthesecond $ t sentenceonlycomesintoplaywhenoneisdealingwithan underinsuredvehicle.Thatsame  ` secondsentencerefersbackto paragraph(c)ofthisendorsement!asquotedearlierinthisopinion  L  !whichalsoreferstoan underinsuredmotorvehicle.Aswehavepointedoutinthepreceding  8  paragraphofthisopinion,theBussellsvehiclewasnot underinsuredasthattermisdefinedinthe $  plaintiffspolicy.Thus,theexceptiondescribedintheitalicizedsecondsentenceissimplynot   applicabletothefactsofthiscaseandthereisnothingineithersubsection(c)orsubsection(d)   implicatingtheuninsuredmotoristcoverageoftheplaintiffspolicy.Thesepolicyprovisionsdiscuss    anunderinsuredmotorvehicle; anuninsuredmotorvehicle;and/or underinsuredmotorists   coverage.The bottomlineisthattheBussellsvehiclewasneither uninsurednor p  underinsured.Theseprovisionsaresimplynot inplayunderthefactsofthiscase. \   Intheplaintiffssecondandfinalissue,theyarguethatthepublicpolicyofTennesseewould 4 beoffendediftheplaintiffsarenotentitledtothestackedcoverageof$50,000undertheUM/UIM  p provisionsoftheirpolicy,or$25,000foreachcoveredvehicleandeachpremiumpaid.Specifically,  \ theplaintiffscontendthatplaintiff, HerbertFleet,fullybelievedthathewouldreceivethebenefit H ofthe$25,000limitundereachuninsuredmotoristcoverageavailableforwhichhehaspaidandhis 4 carrierhascollectedtwoseparatepremiumswithoutadvisingthe[plaintiffs]further.(Emphasis   inoriginal).Theplaintiffscontendthatpublicpolicydemandsthattheyreceivethisdouble   coverage.    UnlikeVirginia,thestackingofinsurancecoverageinTennesseeisprohibited.SeeTenn.  CodeAnn.5671205(2000);seealso Jones, 620S.W.2dat499.Contrarytotheplaintiffs l assertion,thefailuretostackUM/UIMcoveragesisnotagainst,butclearlyconsistentwith,the X  publicpolicyofthestateofTennessee.Accordingly,theplaintiffsfinalissueiswithoutmerit. D!   VI. #l!   ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandtheclaimagainstIntegonisdismissed.This $D # caseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmayberequired.Costs %0!$ onappealandcostsatthetriallevelapplicabletotheclaimagainstIntegonaretaxedtothe &"% appellees,BradleyC.FleetandHerbertC.Fleet,Jr. '#&    `     h     _______________________________ h+&*    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE