ÿWPCè ë‚·hÚÿ§ÇÑÂåæîÞ“üx¬T‚VÌ•¨¦«–Зö©£HTð#¢É%†&ªRÍkrÁ¤¨[h†…›Gˆúˆ£âÖWÀ臾p*‡`48yñ¿¤ÕÒþoçÃÒOýŠcvÂKø/W á Ã\"p¶ýByµaçrZEmÎSo˃ݑÀûRPôá ØŸ`èn·&áFøØêÀ/A¸½VR5åf‰uøšW#ÁƾªRh~æfŒpv„°;ôŸÙ Aágc®ýã¸J) ­ë 'âš÷Êʈ"½HPs‰zPÈŒø`Ð?þS5%ûe|ü5²¤ãõJgSŽ&£›Êâ0‡V†DRƒ½©ÃYÍi¼Éæ]qÂMvw©í›?  zÝõ9ô#-ÑÍë~’xó?ƒœF»vÐæÓ'äfMУ©Ý-3›Œm¾ôŒýÞÓb¿ÀÙdk‰™†…®ä°%ÜÝKô/T޵ž“ñ´Ì(²\õ牧×UÚWëpÊo¨6oõ‰ëÈwX¯Ý¤ÀŸÌ3ƒ¯U&ˆø2d¹œ$ è…I¥Ë—²i³-˜@•‚ê›zìÝÃ.v½ÎS[Cå³…_êû×B@å:¯êdn¨ÆNïmrßµ®HÝe@êHXa`Œçòm›ÏOb %\^ b 0ˆnwöUNú4H\ zkÒå· m¹ 0DÐ N Æ ÆÜ Æ¢ Æh #Á. NïñY Ebéd°Mâýýßß÷÷"ÿ˜!!!!!!!!"¹¹¹¹¹¹bÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ 0ëãããã BÎÎ 0¤ë D5 D-Ä 0Kññ AS<Æ 0¤U 0Dù A«=»|o) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-vn)\Pbk2H<¢3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ÑHÀÑ OÝ ƒR×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôô½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€context€of€negligence€cases,€ð ðdutyðð€connotes€an€obligation€to€act€reasonably€to€protect€another€from€anÐ À Ðunreasonable€risk€of€harm.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€€Determining€whether€a€duty€existsÐ „Ä Ðin€the€circumstances€of€a€particular€case€is€a€question€of€law,€òòStaples€v.€Ô_ÔCBLÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.Ð Hˆ Ð2000),€that€requires€the€court€to€determine€whether€the€plaintiff€has€a€legal€interest€which€is€entitled€to€protection€at€theÐ  L Ðhands€of€the€defendant.€€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869„70€(Tenn.€1993). ßÝ ƒR×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôô½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b)€states:€€ð ðReview€generally€will€extend€only€to€those€issues€presented€for€review.€€TheÐ À Ðappellate€court€shall€also€consider€whether€the€trial€and€appellate€Ô_Ôcourt[sÔ_Ô]€have€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter,Ð „Ä Ðwhether€or€not€presented€for€review,€and€may€in€its€discretion€consider€other€issues€in€order,€among€other€reasons:€€(1)Ð Hˆ Ðto€prevent€needless€litigation,€(2)€to€prevent€injury€to€the€interests€of€the€public,€and€(3)€to€prevent€prejudice€to€theÐ  L Ðjudicial€process.ðð ¦Ý ƒR×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôô½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMerrimack€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal. ØÝ ƒR×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôô½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€states€that€the€appellate€courts€ð ðshall€grant€the€relief€on€the€law€and€facts€to€which€theÐ À Ðparty€is€entitled€or€the€proceeding€otherwise€requires€and€may€grant€any€relief€.€.€.€provided,€however,€relief€may€not€beÐ „Ä Ðgranted€in€contravention€of€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.ðð ÑÀÀÑ  Ñ À ÑÑ ° Ñ ŽÝ ƒR×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôô½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIf€we€were€to€decline€to€address€the€statute€of€limitations€issues,€the€defendants€would€raise€them€as€soon€asÐ ° Ðthe€case€was€remanded.€€The€trial€court€would€then€be€required€to€€address€the€question.€€No€matter€how€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðruled,€one€side€or€the€other€would€be€entitled€to€pursue€a€second€appeal€to€this€court.€€Taking€up€the€issue€at€this€junctureÐ 8ˆ Ðsaves€the€parties€and€the€courts€the€time€and€resources€that€would€be€consumed€if€all€these€steps€were€pursued. Ñ À ÑÑ À Ñ- ù-(|G2×$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôô½ò»»Ô d(|3|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑH°ÑÑH°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼]5»»»ÔÑ8€iXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€7ƒÑÑ€(óXÑÑ€ƒOÑÑ€7¿Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îO„]5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ H Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼]5»îîO„l#ԈРn& ÐÓ  Ó€November€6,€1998€SessionÐ ”L ÐÔ‡XiX»¼]5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]5»XXiV#ÔRICKIE€L.€HEATHERLY,€òòet€al.óó€v.Ð ’J ÐMERRIMACK€MUTUAL€FIRE€INSURANCE€COMPANY,€òòet€alóó.ó óÐ ¦^ ÐÌÔ€XiX»¼]5Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ Ì „ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€16660„C€€€€€€Thomas€Goodall,€JudgeÐ ¸ p ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<{` AßÐ |4  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00906„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R10„CV€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ w/  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<N` AßÐ O Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€extraordinary€appeal€involves€a€dispute€between€two€homeowners€whose€house€was€damagedÐ J Ðby€fire€and€the€two€insurance€adjusting€companies€hired€by€the€homeownersðð€insurance€carrier€toÐ 6î Ðinvestigate€their€claim.€€Believing€that€their€claim€had€been€fraudulently€processed,€the€homeownersÐ "Ú Ðfiled€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€County€against€their€insurance€carrier€and€the€two€adjustingÐ Æ Ðcompanies.€€The€three€defendants€moved€to€dismiss€the€complaint€as€to€the€adjusting€companies.€Ð ú² ÐAfter€the€trial€court€denied€the€motions€and€declined€to€grant€an€interlocutory€appeal,€the€twoÐ æž Ðadjusting€companies€petitioned€for€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10€extraordinary€appeal.€€We€granted€theÐ ÒŠ Ðapplication€and€now€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€to€dismiss€because€the€homeownersÐ ¾v Ðhave€conceded€that€they€have€no€breach€of€contract€claim€against€the€adjusting€companies€andÐ ªb Ðbecause€we€have€concluded€that€the€homeownersðð€claims€are€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.Ð –N ÐÓIÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€10€Extraordinary€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversedó óÐ n& ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,Ð Fþ Ðand€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó,€J.,€joined.Ð 2ê ÐÌJohn€O.€Threadgill,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€and€Parks€T.€Chastain,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ  !Â! Ðappellants,€Mutual€Fire€Insurance€Association€of€New€England,€Inc.Ð ö!®" ÐÌDavid€B.€Scott,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€The€Professional€Company€InsuranceÐ Î#† $ ÐAdjusters,€Inc.Ð º$r!% ÐÌJoseph€Y.€Longmire,€Hendersonville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Rickie€L.€Heatherly€and€RonelleÐ ’&J#' ÐM.€Heatherly.Ð ~'6$( ÐÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óˆÐ V)&* ÐÌà  àOn€August€26,€1995,€an€accidental€electrical€fire€caused€extensive€damage€to€a€house€inÐ .+æ', ÐHendersonville€owned€by€Rickie€and€Ronelle€Heatherly.€€The€Heatherlys€notified€their€homeownersÐ ,Ò(- Ðinsurance€carrier,€Merrimack€Mutual€Fire€Insurance€Company€(ð ðMerrimackðð)€of€the€fire€and€laterÐ -¾). Ðfiled€a€timely€claim€for€damages.€€Due€to€the€damage€to€the€house€and€its€contents,€the€HeatherlysÐ ò-ª*/ Ðwere€forced€to€move€into€a€rented€apartment€and€even€to€rent€furniture.Ð Þ.–+0ý ÐÑ7¿Ñâ âÑÀHÑâ âÑ  Ñà  àÔ_ÔMerrimackÔ_Ô€did€not€employ€its€own€adjusters€in€Nashville€when€it€received€the€HeatherlysððÐ H Ðclaim.€€Instead,€it€hired€two€adjusting€companies,€Mutual€Fire€Insurance€Company€(ð ðMutualðð)€andÐ 4ì ÐThe€Professional€Company€Insurance€Adjuster,€Inc.€(ð ðProfessionalðð)€to€investigate€the€HeatherlysððÐ  Ø Ðclaim.€€Following€the€investigation,€Merrimack€offered€to€pay€the€Heatherlys€$76,900.15€underÐ  Ä Ðð ðCoverage€Aðð€of€their€homeowners€policy€and€submitted€to€the€Heatherlys€a€completed€proof€of€lossÐ ø° Ðform€prepared€by€Mutual€for€their€signature.€€Ð äœ ÐÌà  àThe€Heatherlys€declined€to€accept€Merrimackððs€settlement€offer€and,€instead,€providedÐ ¼ t ÐMerrimack€with€a€modified€proof€of€loss€form€stating€that€their€covered€losses€amounted€toÐ ¨ ` Ð$88,551.19.€€Merrimack€rejected€the€Heatherlysðð€claim€on€November€27,€1995,€but€tendered€themÐ ” L  Ð$76,900.15,€the€amount€it€had€originally€offered€in€settlement€of€their€Coverage€A€claim.€€MerrimackÐ € 8  Ðalso€requested€the€Heatherlys€to€fill€out€a€proof€of€loss€form€for€their€claims€under€ð ðCoverage€Cðð€ofÐ l $  Ðthe€policy.€€After€they€received€the€proof€of€loss€form€for€their€Coverage€C€claim,€the€HeatherlysÐ X  Ðretained€counsel€who€promptly€threatened€to€sue€Ô_ÔMerrimackÔ_Ô,€Mutual,€and€Professional€if€theÐ Dü  ÐHeatherlysðð€claims€were€not€promptly€settled.€€Eventually,€Merrimack€paid€the€Heatherlys€the€limitsÐ 0è  Ðunder€each€component€of€their€homeowners€policy,€including€$99,500€under€Coverage€A,€$69,650Ð Ô  Ðunder€Coverage€C,€and€$15,373.52€under€Coverage€D.Ð À ÐÌà  àOn€March€25,€1997,€the€Heatherlys€filed€suit€against€Merrimack,€Mutual,€and€ProfessionalÐ à˜ Ðin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€County,€alleging€breach€of€contract,€negligence,€and€violation€of€theÐ Ì„ ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€They€sought€damages€for,€among€other€things,€$27,502.10€inÐ ¸p Ðcompensatory€damages,€the€cost€of€debris€removal,€the€twenty„five€percent€bad€faith€penalty€underÐ ¤\ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„105(a)€(1994),€treble€damages,€$1,000,000€in€punitive€damages,€andÐ H Ðattorneyððs€fees.€€Ô_ÔMerrimackÔ_Ô,€Mutual,€and€Professional€filed€a€joint€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€motionÐ |4 Ðto€dismiss€the€claims€against€Mutual€and€Professional.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€and€alsoÐ h  Ðdenied€the€adjusting€companiesðð€separate€motions€for€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€interlocutory€appeal.€Ð T  ÐThereafter,€we€granted€Mutualððs€and€Professionalððs€petition€for€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10€extraordinaryÐ @ø Ðappeal.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ,ä ÐÌà@““)ìàò òI.€ó óˆÐ ¼ Ðà@f f ìàòòò òThe€Scope€of€this€Extraordinary€Appealó óóóˆÐ ð¨ ÐÌà  àAs€a€threshold€matter,€we€must€determine€which€issues€are€properly€before€this€court€forÐ È €  Ðdecision.€€In€their€application€for€an€extraordinary€appeal,€Mutual€and€Professional€focused€theirÐ ´!l! Ðargument€on€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€deny€their€joint€motion€to€dismiss€the€Heatherlysðð€contractÐ  "X" Ðclaim.€€However,€in€their€brief€filed€after€this€court€granted€the€extraordinary€appeal,€Mutual€andÐ Œ#D # ÐProfessional€have€also€taken€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€their€motions€to€dismiss€theÐ x$0!$ ÐHeatherlysðð€negligence€and€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€claims.Ð d%"% ÐÌà  àThe€scope€of€the€issues€raised€on€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€and€10€appeals€differs€from€the€scopeÐ <'ô#' Ðof€the€issues€that€can€be€raised€on€appeals€as€of€right€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3.€€Subject€to€theÐ ((à$( Ðlimitations€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)€and€13(b),€both€the€appellant€and€the€appellee€have€broadÐ )Ì%) Ðlatitude€with€regard€to€the€issues€they€can€raise€on€a€direct€appeal.€€The€same€is€not€the€case€forÐ *¸&* ÐÑ(óXÑâ (âÑÀHÑÑÀÀÑâ (âÑ  Ñinterlocutory€appeals€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€or€extraordinary€appeals€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10.€Ð À ÐFor€interlocutory€appeals,€the€only€issues€that€can€be€raised€are€those€certified€in€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¬ì Ðorder€granting€permission€to€seek€an€interlocutory€appeal€and€in€the€appellate€courtððs€order€grantingÐ ˜Ø Ðthe€interlocutory€appeal.€€òòTennessee€Depððt€of€Mental€Health€&€Mental€Retardation€v.€Hughesóó,€531Ð „Ä ÐS.W.2d€299,€300€(Tenn.€1975);€òòMontcastle€v.€Bairdóó,€723€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986);Ð p° ÐòòPass€v.€Shelby€Aviation,€Inc.óó,€No.€W1999„00018„COA„R9„CV,€2000€WL€388775,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð \œ ÐApp.€Apr.€13,€2000)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€For€extraordinary€appeals,€theÐ H ˆ Ðissues€are€limited€to€those€specified€in€this€courtððs€order€granting€the€extraordinary€appeal.€€òòGibsonÐ 4 t Ðv.€Prokellóó,€No.€02A01„9908„CH„00237,€1999€WL€1097848,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€5,€1999)€(NoÐ  ` ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€Ð  L  ÐÌà  àThe€application€for€an€extraordinary€appeal€filed€by€Mutual€and€Professional€dealtÐ ä $  Ðexclusively€with€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€dismiss€the€Heatherlysðð€breach€of€contract€claim€againstÐ Ð  Ðthem.€€However,€in€the€statement€of€relief€being€sought,€the€two€adjusting€companies€requested€thatÐ ¼ü  Ðthis€court€ð ðenter€an€opinion€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€dismissing€the€plaintiffsðð€causesÐ ¨è  Ðof€action€against€them€on€all€counts.ðð€€This€courtððs€order€granting€the€extraordinary€appeal€did€notÐ ”Ô  Ðspecifically€delineate€the€issues€that€would€be€addressed€on€appeal.€€Thereafter,€Mutual€andÐ €À ÐProfessional€filed€a€brief€addressing€not€only€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€dismiss€the€breach€of€contractÐ l¬ Ðclaim,€but€also€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€dismiss€the€negligence€and€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÐ X˜ ÐAct€claims.€€The€Heatherlys€did€not€object€to€the€issues€being€raised€by€the€adjusting€companies€andÐ D„ Ðfiled€a€brief€responding€to€all€these€issues.€€We€have€determined€that€it€is€appropriate€for€this€courtÐ 0p Ðto€address€all€three€issues€briefed€by€Mutual€and€Professional€because€this€courtððs€order€granting€theÐ \ Ðinterlocutory€appeal€did€not€set€out€the€issues€to€be€addressed€and€because€the€Heatherlys€have€filedÐ H Ða€brief€addressing€these€issues.Ð ô4 ÐÌà@……)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ Ì  Ðòòò òà@› › ìàThe€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€Motion€to€Dismissó óóóˆÐ ¸ø ÐÌà  àAll€three€defendants€filed€a€joint€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€the€HeatherlysððÐ Ð Ðclaims€against€Mutual€and€Professional.€€They€argued€that€the€complaint€failed€to€state€a€claim€uponÐ |¼ Ðwhich€relief€could€be€granted€because€the€Heatherlys,€by€their€own€admission,€did€not€have€a€contractÐ h¨ Ðwith€either€Mutual€or€Professional€and€because€Mutual€and€Professional€were€acting€as€agents€forÐ T ” Ða€disclosed€principal.€€Accordingly,€they€argued€that€there€could€be€no€claim€for€breach€of€contractÐ @!€  Ðor€a€claim€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€They€also€argued€that€the€lack€of€aÐ ,"l! Ðcontract€doomed€the€Heatherlysðð€negligence€claim€because€there€was€no€other€law€in€TennesseeÐ #X" Ðimposing€a€duty€to€insureds€on€adjusting€companies€retained€by€an€insurance€carrier.Ð $D # ÐÌà  àThe€motion€to€dismiss€did€not€assert€any€sort€of€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€However,€eachÐ Ü%"% Ðdefendantððs€answer€to€the€complaint€contained€an€affirmative€defense€based€on€the€statute€ofÐ È&#& Ðlimitations€with€regard€to€the€Heatherlysðð€negligence€and€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€ActÐ ´'ô#' Ðclaims.€€Two€of€these€answers€had€been€filed€by€the€time€the€trial€court€conducted€the€hearing€on€theÐ  (à$( Ðjoint€motion€to€dismiss,€but€there€is€no€indication€in€this€record€that€the€trial€court€addressed€theÐ Œ)Ì%) Ðstatute€of€limitations€questions€in€the€context€of€its€consideration€of€the€motion€to€dismiss.€Ð x*¸&* ÐAccordingly,€we€must€limit€the€scope€of€the€motion€to€dismiss€to€the€grounds€specifically€containedÐ d+¤'+ Ðin€the€motion.Ð P,(, ÐÑ7ƒÑâ âÑHÀÑâ âÑ  Ñà  àThe€Heatherlys€have€conceded€in€their€appellate€brief€that€their€complaint€fails€to€state€aÐ À Ðbreach„of„contract€claim€against€Mutual€and€Professional€because€their€contract€was€withÐ ¬ì ÐMerrimack.€€Accordingly,€we€need€not€address€the€breach€of€contract€claim€further.€€However,€theÐ ˜Ø Ðabsence€of€a€contract€does€not€necessarily€defeat€the€Heatherlysðð€negligence€and€TennesseeÐ „Ä ÐConsumer€Protection€Act€claims€against€Mutual€and€Professional.€€Privity€of€contract€is€not€requiredÐ p° Ðfor€consumer€protection€act€claims,€òòsee€generally€Maillet€v.€ATF„Davidson€Co.óó,€552€N.E.2d€236,€242Ð \œ Ð(Mass.€1990)€(stating€that€ð ðnonprivity€plaintiffs€can€also€maintain€an€action€in€a€products€liabilityÐ H ˆ Ðcase.ðð);€òòMetropolitan€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€Haneyóó,€987€S.W.2d€236,€242€(Tex.€App.€1999)€(noting€thatÐ 4 t Ðð ð[t]he€plaintiff,€however,€need€not€establish€contractual€privity€with€the€defendant.ðð),€and€contractsÐ  ` Ðare€not€the€sole€source€of€duty€in€negligence€cases.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€we€have€determined€that€this€caseÐ  L  Ðdoes€not€present€an€appropriate€vehicle€for€determining€whether€insureds€may€maintain€eitherÐ ø 8  Ðnegligence€or€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€claims€against€adjusting€companies€€because€theÐ ä $  ÐHeatherlysðð€claims,€even€if€they€had€them,€are€clearly€time„barred.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ¨è  Ðà@SS ìàòòò òThe€Heatherlysðð€Negligence€and€Consumer€Protection€Act€Claimsó óóó€ˆÐ ”Ô  ÐÌà  àEven€though€Mutual€and€Professional€did€not€assert€statute€of€limitations€defenses€in€theirÐ p° Ðmotion€to€dismiss,€they€included€them€in€their€answers,€and€thereby,€put€the€Heatherlys€on€notice€thatÐ \œ Ðthey€were€asserting€that€the€negligence€and€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€claims€were€time„Ð Hˆ Ðbarred.€€Mutual€and€Professional€included€lengthy€arguments€supporting€these€defenses€in€theirÐ 4t Ðappellate€brief.€€While€the€Heatherlys€have€argued€that€this€court€should€not€address€the€statute€ofÐ  ` Ðlimitations€issue€for€procedural€reasons,€they€have€also€briefed€the€statute€of€limitations€issues.Ð  L ÐÌà  àAs€a€general€matter,€appellate€courts€will€decline€to€consider€issues€raised€for€the€first€timeÐ ä$ Ðon€appeal€that€were€not€raised€and€considered€in€the€trial€court.€€òòReid€v.€Stateóó,€9€S.W.3d€788,€796Ð Ð Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€However,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b)׃d×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€36(a)׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€give€appellate€courtsÐ ¼ü Ðconsiderable€discretion€to€consider€issues€that€have€not€been€properly€presented€in€order€to€achieveÐ ¨è Ðfairness€and€justice.€€òòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€412€(Tenn.€1995).€€Taken€together,€theseÐ ”Ô Ðrules€permit€appellate€courts€to€grant€complete€relief€to€the€parties€as€long€as€they€have€been€givenÐ €À Ðfair€notice€and€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€the€dispositive€issues.€€òòRealty€Shop,€Inc.€v.€RRÐ l¬ ÐWestminster€Holding,€Inc.óó,€7€S.W.3d€581,€608€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ð X ˜ ÐуOÑâ âÑÀHÑѰÀÑâ âÑ  Ñà  àDespite€the€inference€in€Mutualððs€and€Professionalððs€reply€brief€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ ° Ðdefense€was€presented€to€the€trial€court,€the€appellate€record€contains€no€basis€upon€which€we€canÐ œì Ðconclude€that€it€was.€€Accordingly,€we€must€conclude€that€it€was€not.€€However,€this€proceduralÐ ˆØ Ðshortcoming€will€not€prevent€us€from€addressing€the€statute€of€limitations€issues€on€appeal€for€fourÐ tÄ Ðreasons.€€First,€both€Mutual€and€Professional€asserted€statute€of€limitations€defenses€in€their€answers.€Ð `° ÐSecond,€the€appellate€record,€particularly€the€Heatherlysðð€complaint€and€the€exhibits€to€MerrimackððsÐ L œ Ðopposition€to€motion€to€quash,€provide€the€evidence€needed€to€consider€these€motions.€€Third,Ð 8 ˆ ÐMutual,€Professional,€and€the€Heatherlys€have€already€briefed€the€statute€of€limitations€issues.€Ð $ t ÐFourth,€addressing€the€statute€of€limitations€issues€at€this€state€of€the€proceeding€will€prevent€furtherÐ  ` Ðneedless€litigation€in€this€case.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àPrivate€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€claims€and€negligence€claims€must€be€filedÐ Ô$  Ðwithin€one€year€after€the€cause€of€action€accrues.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104(a)(1)€(Supp.€1999)Ð À  Ð(time€limitations€on€actions€for€injuries€to€the€person);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„110€(1995)Ð ¬ü  Ð(limitations€on€private€consumer€protection€actions).€€For€both€claims,€the€cause€of€action€accruesÐ ˜è  Ðwhen€the€action€giving€rise€to€the€claim€is€discovered.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„110€(stating€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€running€of€the€statute€is€triggered€by€ð ða€personððs€discovery€of€the€unlawful€act€or€practiceðð);Ð pÀ ÐòòMcCroskey€v.€Bryant€Air€Conditioning€Co.óó,€524€S.W.2d€487,€491€(Tenn.€1975);€òòTeeters€v.€Curreyóó,Ð \¬ Ð518€S.W.2d€512,€517€(Tenn.€1974).€€The€Heatherlys€filed€their€complaint€against€the€adjustingÐ H˜ Ðcompanies€on€March€25,€1997.€€Accordingly,€they€must€either€have€sustained€or€discovered€theirÐ 4„ Ðinjuries€within€one€year€prior€to€March€25,€1997.Ð  p ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€Heatherlysðð€complaint,€the€defendants€did€not€provide€them€with€the€formsÐ øH Ðneeded€to€submit€their€claim€even€though€almost€two€months€had€elapsed€since€the€August€26,€1995Ð ä4 Ðfire.€€Instead,€on€October€25,€1995,€Merrimack€provided€them€with€an€already€completed€proof€ofÐ Ð  Ðloss€form€supporting€a€$76,900.15€claim€under€Coverage€A€of€their€homeowners€policy.€€TheÐ ¼  ÐHeatherlys€alleged€in€their€complaint€that€this€form€had€been€completed€by€Mutual€and€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðinformation€on€the€form€was€ð ðfalse€and€fraudulent.ðð€€The€Heatherlys€declined€to€sign€this€form€butÐ ”ä Ðlater€submitted€a€corrected€form€claiming€loses€in€the€amount€of€$88,551.19€under€Coverage€A.€Ð €Ð ÐThey€also€demanded€that€Merrimack€pay€the€benefits€due€them€under€their€policy€within€sixty€days.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAt€this€juncture,€and€possibly€at€some€time€before,€the€Heatherlys€retained€a€lawyer€toÐ D!” Ðrepresent€them€in€their€dealings€with€Merrimack.€€On€November€27,€1995,€Merrimack€notified€theÐ 0"€  ÐHeatherlys€in€writing€that€it€rejected€their€$88,551.19€claim.€€Three€days€later,€on€November€30,Ð #l! Ð1995,€the€Heatherlysðð€lawyer€informed€Merrimack€in€writing€that€he€had€been€retained€to€representÐ $X" Ðthe€Heatherlys.€€He€also€informed€Merrimack€that€there€was€no€ð ðvalid€basisðð€for€rejecting€the€proofÐ ô$D # Ðof€loss€and€that€Merrimack€would€be€acting€in€bad€faith€if€it€did€not€pay€the€Heatherlysðð€claim€withinÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âsixty€days.€€While€disclaiming€a€desire€to€play€ð ðhard€ball,ðð€the€Heatherlysðð€lawyer€also€informedÐ Ì&"% ÐMerrimack€that€his€clients€intended€to€seek€statutory€bad€faith€penalties€and€treble€damages€underÐ ° Ðthe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€if€their€claims€were€not€properly€adjusted.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àBased€on€the€allegations€in€the€Heatherlysðð€complaint€and€the€undisputed€facts€in€the€record,Ð tÄ Ðno€other€conclusion€can€be€drawn€other€than€that€the€Heatherlys€had€discovered€the€alleged€wrong„Ð `° Ðdoing€by€Merrimack,€Mutual,€and€Professional€at€least€by€November€1995.€€They€had€rejected€whatÐ L œ Ðthey€refer€to€as€Merrimackððs€ð ðfalse€and€fraudulentðð€claim€form€and€had€retained€a€lawyer€to€representÐ 8 ˆ Ðthem€in€their€dealings€with€Merrimack.€€Their€lawyer,€acting€on€their€behalf,€€informed€MerrimackÐ $ t Ðon€November€30,€1995,€that€the€company€was€acting€wrongfully.€Despite€the€threats€by€theÐ  ` ÐHeatherlysðð€lawyer,€Merrimack€did€not€adjust€the€Heatherlysðð€claim€within€sixty€days.€€On€NovemberÐ ü L  Ð19,€1996,€the€Heatherlysðð€lawyer€sent€another€letter€to€Merrimack€threatening€suit€if€the€claim€wasÐ è 8  Ðnot€resolved.€€When€Merrimack€did€not€respond€to€their€satisfaction,€the€Heatherlys€filed€suit€onÐ Ô$  ÐMarch€25,€1997.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Heatherlysðð€causes€of€action€against€Merrimack,€Mutual,€and€Professional€accrued€whenÐ ˜è  Ðthey€discovered€or€should€reasonably€have€discovered€their€injuries€and€the€cause€thereof.€€òòSee€PottsÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Celotex€Corp.óó,€796€S.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€1990);€òòCity€State€Bank€v.€Dean€Witter€Reynolds,€Inc.óó,Ð pÀ Ð948€S.W.2d€729,€735€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€The€allegations€in€the€Heatherlysðð€complaint€and€theirÐ \¬ Ðlawyerððs€November€30,€1995€letter€leave€little€doubt€that€the€Heatherlys€believed€that€they€had€been€Ð H˜ Ðinjured€because€Merrimack€had€rejected€their€$88,551.19€claim€under€Coverage€A€and€had€delayedÐ 4„ Ðin€providing€them€the€forms€needed€to€pursue€their€other€claims.€€It€is€equally€clear€that€theÐ  p ÐHeatherlys€believed€that€Merrimack€and€its€adjusters€were€the€cause€of€their€injuries.€€Even€if€weÐ  \ Ðwere€to€assume€that€the€Heatherlys€were€not€really€ð ðinjuredðð€until€Merrimack€declined€to€settle€theirÐ øH ÐCoverage€A€claim€within€sixty€days€of€their€lawyerððs€November€30,€1995€letter,€they€certainly€knewÐ ä4 Ðthat€they€had€been€injured€by€January€29,€1996,€when€Merrimack€still€had€not€settled€their€CoverageÐ Ð  ÐA€claim€to€their€satisfaction.€€These€facts€support€only€one€conclusion€ð!ð€that€the€Heatherlys€hadÐ ¼  Ðdiscovered€their€causes€of€action€against€Mutual€and€Professional€well€in€advance€of€March€25,Ð ¨ø Ð1997.€€Accordingly,€the€negligence€and€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€claims€against€MutualÐ ”ä Ðand€Professional€in€the€Heatherlysðð€March€27,€1997€complaint€were€time„barred€and€were€subjectÐ €Ð Ðto€being€dismissed€either€on€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€or€56€motion.Ð l¼ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àWe€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€the€motion€to€dismiss€by€Mutual€Fire€InsuranceÐ #l! ÐAssociation€of€New€England,€Inc.€and€The€Professional€Company€Insurance€Adjusters,€Inc.€andÐ $X" Ðremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€€We€tax€theÐ ô$D # Ðcosts€of€this€appeal€jointly€and€severally€to€Rickie€L.€Heatherly€and€Ronelle€M.€Heatherly,€for€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðexecution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________________Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE