WPC "|B8'iCRN I)Qӏ|Ж-+D}v4` `8uD4}`,Z8~‘[1N+Մ=x6P/pmyra]@?r,YJrި9ՄlaUkw?ZZW_gN6tLD&@qx q k'/O߭ 3ySfrBY)\]+O <ݧ<@ls0p&'b(:Kb'EQ#d'ÃWAL*Y!2mPI8&c},}{1k4yD I@jGհ)"8z2O$̹\crϿF6RvUC6u8O y MgAuN| 7e0e{)LB9ߧΙL8Lb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 1N~ 0DE 72 1u 72u 0cb                                     0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASi 0 0D& AjJy+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularuV)t'3|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Seri0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(#$  0  1. 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -(|G2$ !.8%dd8         0   d(|3^$ !.8%dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3^$ !.8%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8%dd8     _  %8TXXdd8  @ %INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#% #Ԉ &   July11,2001Session L _XTX%_____ #%XXT#LINDAGREEN,M.D.,etal.v.UNITEDSTATESAUTOMOBILE  6 ASSOCIATION,etal.XTX%   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.1468161JohnF.Weaver,Chancellor  6  ___FILEDAUGUST16,_2001__ "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002713_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A   _ _  _______Linda_Ԁ_Green,M.D.__,_ԀandSteve_Ferguson,M.D._Ԁ( Plaintiffs),whoaremarried,filedaComplaintfor  DeclaratoryJudgment( Complaint)againsttheirautomobileinsurancecarrier,UnitedStates x AutomobileAssociation,or_USAA_,regardingadisputeoverthetermsoftheirinsurancepolicy d _( Policy).__Plaintiff_ԀGreen_____claim__ed_Ԁ_coverage__under_ԀtheirPolicysuninsured/_underinsured_Ԁmotorist#%XXT#XTX% P liabilitysectionfor_herphysical_Ԁinjuries,medical_expenses,_Ԁandlossofincomeresultingfroman < automobile_accident.____ԀPlaintiff_ԀFerguson_____claimedcoverage_Ԁforlossofconsortium._#%XXT #XTX%_Ԁ___Defendant (x contendsthatthePolicylimitsPlaintiffFergusons_loss_Ԁofconsortiumclaimtothe$300,000each d personcoveragealreadyextendedtoPlaintiffGreen.After_ԀPlaintiffsfiled___suit_Ԁdisputingthis P interpretationofthePolicy,DefendantfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentwhichwasgrantedby < theTrialCourt.Plaintiffsappeal.Weaffirm. (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.   ____  _#%XT( #XTX.%D._Ԁ_Michael_Ԁ__Swiney__,_J.,_Ԁdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich_Houston_Ԁ_M._Ԁ__Goddard__,__P.J.__,  and_Herschel_Ԁ_P._Ԁ_Franks,_Ԁ_J.,_Ԁjoined. t  ___Celeste_ԀH.HerbertandW.Tyler_Chastain_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,LindaGreen, L"! M.D.,andSteveFerguson,M.D. 8#" _____JamesE.Wagner,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,UnitedServicesAutomobileAssociation. %` $ ~ OPINION #%XXT#XTX% ($( #%XXT#  XTX%@% Background  *%*    ` InApril1999,PlaintiffsLindaGreenandSteveFergusonandtheirtwominor p,', childrenwereinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentwithanothervehicle.Asaresultofthisaccident, \-(- PlaintiffGreensufferedseriousphysicalinjuries.Plaintiffsautomobileinsurancepolicywaswith  theDefendant,UnitedStatesAutomobileAssociation.Thedriveroftheothervehiclewasinsured  byFarmersInsuranceGroup.     ` PlaintiffsPolicywithDefendantprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: ` @! DEFINITIONS ... 8  @*8  8`   E. BodilyInjury (referredtoas BI )meansbodilyharm,sickness,or  d disease,includingdeath. T ` x` x @#******* ,  @5 5  [PARTC.UNINSUREDMOTORISTSCOVERAGE] ...   8  8`    INSURINGAGREEMENT ` x` x  8  8`   Wewillpaycompensatorydamageswhicha coveredperson is | legallyentitledtorecoverfromtheowneroroperatorofan l  uninsuredmotorvehicle becauseof:X` x` x  (5h83"3"  8  8`   8 ` x` x325h  1  .3  0    BI sustainedbya coveredperson andcaused 4 byanaccident....3݌$t   Ќ  8  8`   8 ` x` x    8  8`    LIMITOFLIABILITYL` x` x 8  8`    a.For BI sustainedbyanyonepersoninanyoneaccident,our 8 maximumlimitofliabilityforallresultingdamages,including,but ( notlimitedto,alldirect,derivativeorconsequentialdamages  recoverablebyanypersons,isthelimitof BI liabilityshowninthe  Declarationsfor eachpersonforUMCoverage.Subjecttothis  limitfor eachperson,ourmaximumlimitofliabilityforall  damagesfor BI resultingfromanyoneaccidentisthelimitof BI  x  liabilityshownintheDeclarationsfor eachaccidentforUM h! Coverage.Thelimitof PD liabilityshownintheDeclarationsfor T"   eachaccidentforUMCoverageisourmaximumlimitofliability D#! forall PD resultingfromanyoneaccident.Thisisthemostwewill 0$" payregardlessofthenumberof coveredpersons ,claimsmade,  %p # vehiclesorpremiumsshownintheDeclarationsorvehiclesinvolved &`!$ intheaccident.&L"%` x` x (emphasisinoriginal).ThePolicysDeclarationsshowedthatPlaintiffshaduninsuredmotorist ($$' coveragelimitsforbodilyinjuryclaimsof$300,000foreachpersonand$500,000foreachaccident. )%(    *%)    ` __PlaintiffsaverredintheirComplaintthatFarmersInsurancepaidPlaintiffGreenthe   full perpersonlimitsunderitsliabilitycoverageintheamountof$100,000.Plaintiffsclaimed  thatbecausetheirdamagesexceededFarmerslimits,theywereentitledtouninsured/underinsured  motorist( UM)coverageundertheirPolicywithDefendant.PlaintiffscoverageunderthePolicy t forPlaintiffGreenisnotindisputeinthisappeal. `    ` Defendant,however,refusedPlaintiffFergusonsattempttomakeaseparateclaim 8  forlossofconsortiumunderthePolicysUMcoverage.Defendanttenderedone eachperson $ t policylimitof$300,000forbothPlaintiffsclaims.Inshort,Plaintiffsclaimtheyhavecoverage  ` undertheirPolicyforPlaintiffGreensinjuriesupto$300,000andforPlaintiffFergusonslossof  L  consortiumclaimuptoaseparate$300,000.DefendantarguesthatPlaintiffFergusonsconsortium  8  claimislimitedtothesamecoveragelimitationforthebodilyinjuriessufferedbyPlaintiffGreen, $  resultinginacapof$300,000ofcoverageforbothPlaintiffsclaims.      ` Thereafter,PlaintiffsfiledaComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgmentunderTenn.Code   Ann.2914101,etseq.,againstDefendant,allegingadisputeoverthePolicyslanguageregarding   PlaintiffFergusonslossofconsortiumclaim.DefendantfiledaMotionforPartialDismissaland/or p MotionforSummaryJudgment( MotionforSummaryJudgment).AsgroundsforitsMotion, \ DefendantcontendedthatunderthePolicylanguage,PlaintiffFergusonslossofconsortiumclaim H wasa derivativeclaimandsubjecttothesameeachpersonlimitoftheuninsuredmotorist 4 coverageasPlaintiffGreen,acapof$300.000.Inresponse,Plaintiffsarguedthatsummary  p judgmentwasnotappropriatebecausethePolicyisambiguouswithrespecttoitstreatmentofloss  \ ofconsortiumclaims,and,therefore,PlaintiffFergusonslossofconsortiumclaimwasaseparate H claimunderthePolicy.TheTrialCourtgrantedDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment,and 4 madeaTenn.R.Civ.P.54.02determinationthattheOrderwasfinalastothemattersaddressedin   theOrderandtherewasnojustreasonfordelay.Plaintiffsappeal.Weaffirm.      `  @))% Discussion      ` Onappealandalthoughnotstatedexactlyassuch,PlaintiffscontendthattheTrial l CourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantforthefollowingreasons:1)sincethe X  PolicydoesnotspecificallyexcludeorincludeconsortiumclaimsfromitsdefinitionofBodily D! Injury,itisambiguous;2)Tennesseecourtshavetreatedlossofconsortiumclaimsbothasderivative 0"  andseparateclaims;and3)PlaintiffFergusonsclaimwas,therefore,aseparateclaim. #l!    ` OurSupremeCourtoutlinedthestandardofreviewofamotionforsummary $D # judgmentinStaplesv.CBL&Assoc.,15S.W.3d83(Tenn.2000): %0!$  XTXXXT8  0`   Thestandardsgoverninganappellatecourt'sreviewofamotionforsummary '#& judgmentarewellsettled.Sinceourinquiryinvolvespurelyaquestionof (#' law,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourt'sjudgment, )$( andourtaskisconfinedtoreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhetherthe |*%) requirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeenmet.SeeHunterv.Brown, h+&* 955S.W.2d49,50-51(Tenn.1997);Cowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth,  816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991).TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.04  providesthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriatewhere:(1)thereisnogenuine  issuewithregardtothematerialfactsrelevanttotheclaimordefense t containedinthemotion,seeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993); ` and(2)themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflawonthe L  undisputedfacts.SeeAndersonv.StandardRegisterCo.,857S.W.2d555, 8  559(Tenn.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthatitsmotion $ t satisfiestheserequirements.SeeDownenv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d  ` 523,524(Tenn.1991).Whenthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentmakesa  L  properlysupportedmotion,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoset  8  forthspecificfactsestablishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfacts $  whichmustberesolvedbythetrieroffact.SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat   215. ` `  0  0` (#(# ` (#` (# 8  0`   Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmatively   negateanessentialelementofthenon-movingparty'sclaimorconclusively p establishanaffirmativedefense.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ., \ 960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998);Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d423,426 H (Tenn.1997).Ifthemovingpartyfailstonegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit, 4 thenon-movingparty'sburdentoproduceevidenceestablishingtheexistence  p ofagenuineissuefortrialisnottriggeredandthemotionforsummary  \ judgmentmustfail.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d H at588;Robinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426.Ifthemovingparty 4 successfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenon-movingpartymay   notsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustofferprooftoestablishthe   existenceoftheessentialelementsoftheclaim.` `  8  0`   Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummary  judgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidence l inthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawall X  reasonableinferencesinthenonmovingparty'sfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer, D! 952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat210-11.Courtsshouldgrant 0"  asummaryjudgmentonlywhenboththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawn #l! fromthefactspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.See $X" McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900 $D # S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).#XTXX XT}2#%0!$` `  Staples,15S.W.3dat8889. '#&    ` Therecordshowsthatthematerialfactsofthiscaseareundisputed.Inaddition,our )$( SupremeCourtrecognizedthat issuesrelatingtothescopeof[insurance]coverage...present |*%) questionsoflaw.StandardFireIns.v.ChesterODonley&Assoc.,Inc.,972S.W.2d1,6(Tenn. h+&* Ct.App.1998).Accordingly,ourreviewconcernswhetherDefendantisentitledtojudgmentasa  matteroflaw.Id.;Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Therefore,wewillconductadenovoreviewoftheTrial  CourtsconclusionsoflawwithnopresumptionofcorrectnessoftheTrialCourtsdecision.  Ganzevoortv.Russell,949S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997). t    ` Ingeneral,courtsshouldconstrueinsurancecontractsinthesamemannerasany L  othercontract.AmericanJusticeIns.Reciprocalv.Hutchison,15S.W.3d811,814(Tenn.2000). 8  IninterpretingthePolicy,thisCourtstaskistodeterminetheintentionoftheparties,andviewthe $ t  [t]helanguageofthepolicy...initsplain,ordinaryandpopularsense.Id.;_Guiliano_Ԁv._Cleo_,Inc.,  ` 995S.W.2d88,95(Tenn.1999).Accordingly,thisCourthasheld:  L  8  8`   [aninsurancepolicy]shouldnotbegivenaforced,unnaturalor $  unreasonableconstructionwhichwouldextendorrestrictthepolicy   beyondwhatisfairlywithinitsterms,orwhichwouldleadtoan   absurdconclusionorrenderthepolicynonsensicalandineffective. ` x` x Dixonv.Gunter,636S.W.2d437,441(Tenn.Ct.App.1982)(citing44C.J.S.Insurance296);see p alsoDemontbreunv.CNAIns.Co.,822S.W.2d619,621(Tenn.Ct.App.1991)(holdingthatan \ insurancepolicyshouldnotbeconstruedtoextend coveragebeyonditsintendedscope).This H Courthasa dutytoenforcecontractsaccordingtotheirplainterms[,]andweare precludedfrom 4 creatinganewcontractfortheparties.BobPearsallMotors,Inc.v.RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,  p 521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975).  \ ̀   ` Aninsurancepolicyslanguageisambiguousifit issusceptibleofmorethanone 4 reasonableinterpretation....AmericanJusticeIns.Reciprocalv.Hutchison,15S.W.3dat815.   Thecourts,however,should avoidstrainedconstructionsthatcreateambiguitieswherenoneexist.   Marshallv.Jackson&JonesOils,Inc.,20S.W.3d678,682(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Moreover, [a]ll  provisionsinthecontractshouldbeconstruedinharmonywitheachother,ifpossible,topromote  consistencyandtoavoidrepugnancybetweenthevariousprovisionsofasinglecontract._Guiliano_  v._Cleo_,Inc.,995_S.W._Ԁ2dat95. l    ` Alossofconsortiumclaimis aderivativeclaiminthatthephysicalinjuriesor D! incapacitiesofonesspousegiverisetoandestablishtheclaim.Tugglev.AllRightParkingSys., 0"  Inc.,922S.W.2d105,108(Tenn.1996)(quotingJacksonv.Miller,776S.W.2d115,117(Tenn.Ct. #l! App.1989)).However,apersons righttorecoverforlossofconsortiumisarightindependentof $X" thespousesrighttorecoverfortheinjuriesthemselves.Swaffordv.CityofChattanooga,743 $D # S.W.2d174,178(Tenn.Ct.App.1987);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.251106(providingthat %0!$  [t]hereshallexistincaseswheresuchdamagesareprovedbyaspouse,arighttorecoverforloss &"% ofconsortium). '#&    ` TheTrialCourt,ingrantingDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment,indicated )$( initsOrderthatitwasrelyinguponadecisionofthisCourt,Carterv.USAAProp.&Cas.Ins.,No. |*%) 03A019810CV00327,1999WL652423(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.24,1999)._USAA_Ԁwasthe h+&* insurancecarrieranddefendantbothinCarterandinthiscase.TheinsurancepolicyinCarter  containedtheidenticallanguagefoundinthePolicyinthiscase.Id.,at*2.TheissueinCarterwas  thesameasinthiscase,thatis,whetheralossofconsortiumclaimissubjecttothe eachperson  limitofliabilityforBodilyInjurytooneperson.Id.,at*23.InCarter,thisCourtheldthataloss t ofconsortiumclaimisaderivativeclaim inthesensethattheinjuriestohisorherspousearean ` elementthatmustbeproved...,butrecognizedthattherighttopursuethistypeofclaimis L   independentofthespousesrighttorecoverfortheinjuries.Id.,at*3.ThisCourt,however,went 8  ontoholdthatthePolicyslanguage,whengivenitsordinaryandnaturalmeaning,limitedthe $ t liabilityofUSAAtothe eachpersonlimitforinjurytooneperson,citingthelanguagefoundin  ` thePolicysUMLimitsofLiabilitysection.  L     ` PlaintiffscorrectlypointoutthatthePolicysdefinitionofBodilyInjurydoesnot $  specificallyincludeorexcludelossofconsortiumclaims.Wedisagree,however,withPlaintiffs   argumentthatthiscreatesanambiguityinthePolicy.TheUMLimitofLiabilitysectionclearly   providesthatthe maximumlimitofliabilityforallresultingdamages,including,butnotlimited   to,alldirect,derivativeorconsequentialdamagesrecoverablebyanypersons,isthelimitofBI   liability...foreachperson....(emphasisadded).ThePolicy,when takenandunderstoodin p itsplain,ordinaryandpopularsense...,providesthatPlaintiffGreenhascoverageforherBodily \ Injuryandthat allresultingdamagessustainedbyheror anypersons,includingPlaintiff H Ferguson,aresubjecttothe eachpersonUMlimit.AmericanJusticeIns.Reciprocalv.Hutchison, 4 15S.W.3dat814.WeholdthatPlaintiffFergusonslossofconsortiumclaimfallssquarelywithin  p thePolicylanguage, resultingdamages,...derivativeorconsequentialdamages...andthatto  \ holdotherwisewouldextendthePolicy beyondwhatisfairlywithinitsterms....Dixonv. H Gunter,636S.W.2dat441.IfPlaintiffswantedseparaterecoveryforalossofconsortiumclaim, 4 theyandDefendantwere freetocontractasthey[saw]fitsolongastheyremain[ed]withinthe   boundsoflaw,includingpublicpolicy.Settersv.PermanentGen.AssuranceCorp.,937S.W.2d   950,953(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Accordingly,weagreewithDefendantandtheTrialCourtthatour  decisioninCarterisbothcorrectanddirectlyonpoint.WeaffirmtheTrialCourtsgrantof  summaryjudgmenttoDefendant.  @FF%  XTXXXTCONCLUSION  X     ` ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthiscauseisremandedtotheTrial 0"  Courtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,ifany,consistentwiththisOpinion,andfor #l! collectionofthecostsbelow.ThecostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellants,LindaGreen, $X" M.D.,andSteveFerguson,M.D.,andtheirsurety.#XTXX XTb# $D # Ѐ   `     h     ___________________________________ |*%)    `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE