ÿWPC• °„r³XEX8mYHíácr“Pª¨¾{§G·²ûêªØ‰Š}ÈüüqÔS{®¡‡ Åð0÷$Ü <ðÚâ3Œ±Éd?”Á b1 ø\4šÍ ÚSôÀ£®çÿ pão ÷Ë7´u߀Š`–‡ØÉ¾ºîÛ´†Þ‡ÌG%K€È¤¤œÜ;ŽÈçTØß$ Òêœ Á¦@úÛ8+÷„G™&àÁ­ª¶h,vÊÇ-ºcA\!½Âbú*'Ë.6B¥©\1Š˜ÿßÝW©Ù ít磰AáŒ6…¥FMç×ç1<˜þ™>"W`¦äÿ¦×_÷¥˜ð]—ãRÉMµ…L‰àÍiÀ,‘æ‘苉ñl 7X?ø•stç.&wxž°¯ðéVKö›pðâk_±h ýñ÷©U¼ K‘‘,ýLdßöp^ØÁ·>Û>ûbš45‡'µÖÀbE‚$GtE%…) .¶c[Óü?-gAa·Õ0SJ[’šà!JÐDc¦ÓòO;’à©èþ=¼u;·ðV¥4Úì}ܦ@¡`&->?¡:šHâ•2ãÇÿ= EÝãS^JÝ–p¢žäGƒ’È®gBUè©BÂ÷±q'?ËGI7;r©G…ùÇñ§›PËb %\U@b 0ˆ¢U*N*U:xN² 1‡´ z; Òµ 72‡ 0c¹ 0Š 0Ǧ Æm Æ3 Æù Æ¿ 0w…Nü 0 þ 0´žER 0ÛT 0ï/ 0D 1ub 72×U@ U,I^ uw4…™¨ mªÁ#ÁÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉbŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ 0ë’’’’ B}} 0¤š D3> D-q 0Kžž ASéÆ< 0¤ 0D¦ A«ê»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular   hàÈCEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a) ˜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"(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman , øð AZArial ‰›)L ö~ì(˜C`¢ìÇ«3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0- ù-(|G2.¨$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¡ýò»»Ô d(|3þï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3þï$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€EYXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÄuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼u»îîÄ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XEYX»¼uÔÌò òÔ#†¼u»XXEYï#ÔCALVIN€JOHNSONòòóó€v.€ALLSTATE€INSURANCE€COMPANYòòóó€v.€STEVENÐ úJ ÐUTAH€JOHNSONÔ‡XEYX»¼uÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Grundy€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5954€€€€€€The€Honorable€Buddy€D.€Perry,€Judge€Ð ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01639„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€August€16,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔà  àInsured€sued€his€insurer€to€recover€policy€coverage€due€on€a€fire€loss€to€his€automobile€afterÐ ŒÜ Ðthe€insurer€denied€coverage€under€the€fraud€provision€of€the€policy.€€Judgment€was€entered€on€a€juryÐ xÈ Ðverdict€for€the€insured,€and€the€insurer€has€appealed.€Ð d´ ÐÔ#†XEYXXXEYï#ÔÔ#†¼u»XXEY˜#ÔÔ‡XEYX»¼uÔÌÓãÓÌò òTenn.R.App.P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€andÐ (x ÐRemanded.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼u»àXEY˜#ÔÔ‡XEYX.¼uÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,Ð ì< ÐJ.óó€and€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌMichele€E.€Cooper;€Michael€P.€Mills,€Nashville,€For€Appellant,€Allstate€Insurance€CompanyÐ ° ÐÌHowell€G.€Clements;€Carl€E.€Shiles,€Jr.,€Chattanooga,€For€Appellee,€Calvin€JohnsonÐ ˆØ ÐEarlene€Y.€Speer,€Altamont,€For€Appellee€Steven€JohnsonÐ t Ä ÐÓUÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼u»XXEY„#ÔÔ‡XEYX»¼uÔÐ L"œ! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼u»XXEY¾ #ÔÔ‡XEYX»¼uÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔÑ8€û XdæXXdì8Ñà  àDefendant,€Allstate€Insurance€Company,€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€the€juryÐ $$t# Ðverdict€awarding€plaintiff,€Calvin€Utah€Johnson,€$11,825.00.€€Ð %` $ ÐÌà  àIn€December,€1995,€plaintiff€purchased€a€1994€Mitsubishi€Eclipse€automobile€primarily€forÐ è&8"& Ðhis€son,€Stephen€Johnson,€and€the€vehicle€was€titled€in€both€names.€€Plaintiff€procured€insuranceÐ Ô'$#' Ðcoverage€from€defendant,€Allstate.€€Steven€Johnson€was€in€the€U.€S.€Army€at€the€time€that€the€vehicleÐ À($( Ðwas€purchased€and€used€the€vehicle€when€he€was€home€on€leave.€€Steven€was€discharged€from€theÐ ¬)ü$) Ðarmy€in€February€of€1996,€and€on€or€about€March€25,€1996,€the€vehicle€was€subject€to€a€total€fireÐ ˜*è%* Ðloss.€€Plaintiff€reported€the€total€fire€loss€claim€to€Allstate€on€March€26,€1996,€and€after€anÐ „+Ô&+ Ðinvestigation,€Allstate€denied€the€claim€on€the€basis€of€the€fraud€provision€of€the€policy.€€On€MarchÐ p,À', Ð13,€1997,€plaintiff€filed€suit€against€Allstate€to€collect€the€proceeds€of€the€policy€alleging€that€the€fireÐ \-¬(-ý Ðwas€from€an€unknown€origin€which€totally€destroyed€the€vehicle.€€Allstateððs€answer€denied€thatÐ ° Ðplaintiff€was€entitle€to€recover€based€upon€the€policy€provisions€dealing€with€fraud€on€the€part€of€anÐ œì Ðinsured.€€Allstate€also€filed€a€counterclaim€against€plaintiff€alleging€that€Allstate€is€entitled€to€the€badÐ ˆØ Ðfaith€penalty,€because€plaintiff€did€not€bring€the€action€in€good€faith.€€Allstate€also€filed€a€third€partyÐ tÄ Ðcomplaint€against€Steven€Johnson€for€judgment€over€against€him€in€the€event€that€liability€wasÐ `° Ðadjudged€against€Allstate€in€the€original€complaint.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€case€was€tried€before€a€jury€and€was€submitted€to€the€jury€on€special€interrogatories.€€TheÐ $ t Ðinterrogatories€and€answers€thereto€are€as€follows:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€Did€the€Plaintiff€make€material€misrepresentation€on€the€proof€ofÐ è 8  Ðloss€with€the€intent€to€deceive?ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnswer:€No.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Was€the€fire€loss€to€the€1994€Mitsubishi€Eclipse€intentional,€inÐ „Ô  Ðviolation€of€the€ð ðaccidental€lossðð€provision€of€the€policy?ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnswer:€No.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€Did€Steven€Utah€Johnson,€son€of€Calvin€Utah€Johnson,€cause€theÐ  p Ðwillful€burning€of€the€1994€Mitsubishi€Eclipse?Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnswer:€No.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.€€Did€Calvin€Utah€Johnson€cause€or€consent€to€the€willful€burningÐ ¼  Ðof€the€1994€Mitsubishi€Eclipse?Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnswer:€No.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à5.€€Is€Calvin€Johnson€entitled€to€a€verdict€of€$11,825€as€established€byÐ X ¨ Ðthe€NADA€book€as€the€fair€market€value€of€the€vehicle?ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnswer:€Yes.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà  àJudgment€was€entered€on€the€jury€verdict€for€plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$11,825.00.€€AllstateððsÐ ô$D # Ðpost„trial€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€in€the€alternative€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðdenied,€and€Allstate€has€appealed€presenting€the€following€issues,€as€stated€in€its€brief:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÔ#†XEYXXXEYG #ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€failing€to€define€an€ð ðinsuredðð€as€includingÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSteven€Johnson€as€prescribed€by€the€Allstate€Indemnity€TennesseeÐ )à$( ÐAutomobile€Policy?Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€ruling€that€the€multiple€prior€fire€losses€ofÐ ° ÐCalvin€Johnson€were€not€relevant€to€the€case„in„chief,€preventingÐ œì ÐAllstate€from€proving€two€of€the€three€elements€of€its€arson€defense?ЈØ` x` x ÐÌ€€à8  àà8` Ð Ð àIII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€bifurcating€the€trial€of€this€matter?Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIV.€€Was€Allstate€unduly€prejudiced€by€the€Courtððs€procedural€rulingsÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€point€of€precluding€it€from€receiving€a€fair€trial?Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àV.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€not€finding€that€Calvin€Johnson€failed€to€meetÐ ü L  Ðhis€burden€of€proving€the€fire€loss€to€the€vehicle€was€accidental,€asÐ è 8  Ðrequired€by€the€policy?ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àVI.€€Did€the€Court€improperly€instruct€the€jury€on€Allstateððs€burdenÐ ¬ü  Ðof€establishing€the€defense€of€misrepresentation€of€the€loss,€therebyÐ ˜è  Ðcommitting€reversible€error?Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àVII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€making€a€number€of€invalid€evidentiaryÐ \¬ Ðrulings,€prejudicing€Allstate€to€the€point€of€precluding€a€fair€trial?ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àVIII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€proffering€an€incorrect€jury€verdict€form,Ð  p Ðthereby€confusing€the€jury€and€committing€prejudicial,€reversibleÐ  \ Ðerror?ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€observe€that€technically€Allstate€is€not€entitled€to€review€of€manyÐ Ð  Ðof€its€issues.€€Tenn.R.App.P.€3€(e)€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àProvided,€however,€that€in€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presentedÐ ”ä Ðfor€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€orÐ €Ð Ðexclusion€of€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,Ð l¼ Ðmisconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€other€action€committed€orÐ X ¨ Ðoccurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€aÐ D!” Ðnew€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€same€was€ò òòòspecifically€stated€in€aÐ 0"€  Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€asÐ #l! Ðwaived.ó óóó€.€.€.€(Emphasis€added).Ð$T"` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€motion€for€new€trial€filed€by€Allstate€does€not€specifically€set€out€any€alleged€error,€butÐ Ü%,!$ Ðrefers€to€its€memorandum€of€law€in€support€of€its€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Normally,€a€memorandumÐ È&"% Ðof€law€is€not€filed€as€part€of€the€record,€although€it€is€a€part€of€the€record€in€this€case.€€Moreover,€theÐ ´'#& Ðspecifications€of€the€alleged€errors€in€the€memorandum€do€not€comply€in€many€instances€with€theÐ  (ð#' Ðspecificity€required€by€Rule€3(e).€€However,€in€this€instance,€the€Court€will€treat€the€memorandumÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðas€a€part€of€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€consider€the€issues€as€presented.Ð x*È%) ÐÐ d+´&* ÐÒe°Òà  àWe€will€now€consider€the€issues:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àI.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€failing€to€define€an€ð ðinsuredðð€as€includingÐ ˆØ ÐSteven€Johnson€as€prescribed€by€the€Allstate€Indemnity€TennesseeÐ tÄ ÐAutomobile€Policy?Ð`°` Ã` à ÐÌà  àAllstateððs€first€issue€is€somewhat€confusing.€€It€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€first€issue€is€reallyÐ 8 ˆ Ða€nonissue,€inasmuch€as€the€jury€found€that€neither€plaintiff€nor€Steven€intentionally€set€fire€to€theÐ $ t Ðvehicle.€€Nevertheless,€we€will€discuss€the€issue,€because€Allstateððs€assertions€in€its€brief€are€incorrect.€Ð  ` ЀAllstate€asserts€that€the€insured€is€defined€as€Calvin€Johnson€and€any€family€member€and€individualsÐ ü L  Ðutilizing€the€insuredððs€automobile,€which€included€Steven€and€Linda€Johnson.€€Allstate€points€out€thatÐ è 8  ÐSteven€Johnson€was€residing€at€the€residence€owned€by€Calvin€Johnson,€is€related€by€blood,€was€theÐ Ô$  Ðnamed€driver€on€the€declaration€page,€was€operating€a€covered€automobile,€and€thereby€is€an€insuredÐ À  Ðunder€the€policy.€€What€Allstate€fails€to€recognize€is€that€the€definition€relied€upon€in€its€assertion€isÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€definition€that€applies€only€to€the€liability€part€of€the€policy.€€The€definition€applicable€to€Part€D,Ð ˜è  ÐCoverage€For€Damage€To€Your€Automobile,€is€contained€in€the€definition€section€of€the€policy,€andÐ „Ô  Ðstates:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àDEFINITIONSÐH˜` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àA.€€Throughout€this€policy,€ð ðyouðð€and€ð ðyourðð€refer€to:Ð p` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà8¸ ` Ã` Ãà1.€€The€ð ðnamed€insuredðð€shown€in€the€Declarations;Ð øH ÐandÐä4¸ k¸ k ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà8¸ ` Ã` Ãà2.€€The€spouse€if€a€resident€of€the€same€household.м ¸ k¸ k ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€correctly€noted€that€Steven€Johnson€was€not€an€insured€as€to€Part€D€of€theÐ ”ä Ðpolicy.€€Moreover,€even€if€Steven€Johnson€was€considered€an€insured€under€Part€D€of€the€policy,€theÐ €Ð Ðprovision€of€the€policy€relied€upon€by€Allstate€would€not€prevent€coverage€to€Calvin€Johnson.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðpolicy€provides:€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àFraudÐ0"€ ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àWe€do€not€provide€coverage€for€any€ð ðinsuredðð€who€has€madeÐ $X" Ðfraudulent€statements€or€engaged€in€fraudulent€conduct€in€connectionÐ ô$D # Ðwith€any€accident€or€loss€for€which€coverage€is€sought€under€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðpolicy.ÐÌ&"%` Ã` à ÐÌà  àApparently,€Allstate€misconstrues€the€language€of€this€provision.€€We€view€it€as€saying€thatÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAllstate€provides€no€coverage€for€an€insured€who€has€made€fraudulent€statements€or€engaged€inÐ )à$( Ðâ âfraudulent€conduct.€€It€does€not€state€that€coverage€is€not€provided€for€any€insured€when€any€otherÐ |*Ì%) Ðinsured€has€made€fraudulent€statements€or€engaged€in€fraudulent€conduct.€€For€the€reasons€stated,€thisÐ ° Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` !!àII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€ruling€that€the€multiple€prior€fire€losses€ofÐ tÄ ÐCalvin€Johnson€were€not€relevant€to€the€case„in„chief,€preventingÐ `° ÐAllstate€from€proving€two€of€the€three€elements€of€its€arson€defense?ÐL œ` Ã` à ÐÌà  àAllstate€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€Calvin€Johnsonððs€prior€fire€losses€were€notÐ $ t Ðrelevant€to€the€case€in€chief€precluded€Allstate€from€proving€two€of€the€three€requirement€elementsÐ  ` Ðof€an€arson€defense;€that€is,€motive€for€destruction€of€the€property,€and€the€opportunity€to€collectÐ ü L  Ðinsurance€proceeds€by€being€fully€aware€of€the€claims€process.€€Allstate€contends€that€the€evidenceÐ è 8  Ðwas€relevant€under€Rule€401,€Tenn.R.Evid.,€since€the€case€involves€allegations€of€destruction€ofÐ Ô$  Ðproperty€due€to€arson€and€insurance€fraud.€€Allstate€also€argues€that€plaintiffððs€prior€fire€losses€wereÐ À  Ðadmissible€under€Tenn.R.Evid.€404€(b)€for€the€purposes€of€showing€knowledge,€motive,€commonÐ ¬ü  Ðscheme,€or€plan,€opportunity,€fraudulent€intent,€and€absence€of€mistake€or€accident.€€The€pertinentÐ ˜è  Ðrules€provide:€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌò òà8  àà8` !!àRule€401.€€Definition€of€ð ðRelevant€Evidenceððó óÐ\¬` Ã` à Ðà8  àà8` !!àð ðRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€theÐ H˜ Ðexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€theÐ 4„ Ðaction€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€theÐ  p Ðevidence.€€Ð \` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àò òRule€404.€€Character€evidence€not€admissible€to€prove€conduct;Ð ä4 Ðexceptions;€other€crimes.ÐÐ ` Ã` à ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà0  à*à0hs#s#àà0Àhs#hs#à*à0Às#Às#àà0ps#s#à*Шøps#ps# ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(b)€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.ó 󀄀Evidence€of€other€crimes,Ð €Ð Ðwrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€inÐ pÀ Ðorder€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ð \ ¬ Ðhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditions€whichÐ H!˜ Ðmust€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:Ð4"„ ` Ã` à Ðà8  àà8` !!àà8¸ ` Ã` Ãà*€*€*€Ð #p!¸ k¸ k Ðà8  àà8` !!àà8¸ ` Ã` Ãà(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issueÐ  $\" Ðexists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÐ ø$H # Ðtrait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admittingÐ Ð& "% Ðthe€evidence;€andм' #&¸ k¸ k Ðà8  àà8` !!àà8¸ ` Ã` Ãà(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probativeÐ ¨(ø#' Ðvalue€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€Ð”)ä$(¸ k¸ k Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà8  àà8` !!àò òRule€403.€€Exclusion€of€relevant€evidence€on€grounds€of€prejudice,Ð ° Ðâ âconfusion,€or€waste€of€time.ó 󀀄Мì` Ã` à Ðà8  àà8` !!àà ¸ àAlthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probativeÐ ŒÜ Ðvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ð xÈ Ðconfusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€ofÐ d´ Ðundue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needles€presentation€of€cumulativeÐ P   Ðevidence.€€Ð< Œ` Ã` à ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€850€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.€1992),€the€insured€sued€toÐ  d Ðrecover€policy€proceeds€for€fire€damage€to€her€home.€€In€holding€that€the€trial€court€had€not€erred€inÐ  P  Ðexcluding€evidence€of€plaintiffððs€allegedly€prior€fraudulent€dealings€with€other€insurers,€the€CourtÐ ì <  Ðsaid:Ð Ø(  ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à[T]he€defendant€contends€that€given€the€difficulty€of€proving€arsonÐ °  Ðsuch€evidence€of€the€plaintiffððs€alleged€past€dealings€should€have€beenÐ œì  Ðadmitted.€€The€defendant€claims€the€exclusion€of€this€evidenceÐ ˆØ  Ðdeprived€it€of€the€ability€to€show€the€plaintiff€was€consciously€engagedÐ tÄ Ðin€a€scheme€of€lying€to€insurance€companies€for€monetary€gain.Ð`°` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà ¸ àWe€disagree€that€such€evidence€must€necessarily€be€admitted.€Ð 8ˆ ÐAn€inquiry€into€character€is€not€rejected€so€often€because€it€isÐ $t Ðirrelevant;€ð ðon€the€contrary€it€is€said€to€weigh€too€much€with€the€juryÐ ` Ðand€to€so€over€persuade€them€as€to€prejudge€one€with€a€bad€generalÐ üL Ðrecord€and€deny€him€a€fair€opportunity€to€defend€against€a€particularÐ è8 Ðcharge.ðð€€ò òòòMichelson€v.€United€Statesó óóó,€335€U.S.€469,€475„76,€69€S.Ct.Ð Ô$ Ð213,€218,€93€L.Ed.€168€(1948).€€This€legal€maxim€applies€in€civilÐ À Ðcases;€litigants€must€be€accountable€only€for€the€cause€of€actionÐ ¬ü Ðbrought€against€them€or€affirmative€defenses€asserted.Иè` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà ¸ àIn€Tennessee€admissibility€of€evidence€is€within€the€soundÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€When€arriving€at€a€determination€to€admitÐ \ ¬ Ðor€exclude€even€that€evidence€which€is€considered€relevant€trial€courtsÐ H!˜ Ðare€generally€accorded€a€wide€degree€of€latitude€and€will€only€beÐ 4"„  Ðoverturned€on€appeal€where€there€is€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€Ð  #p! Ðò òòòStrickland€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburg,ó óóó€611€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð  $\" Ð1980);€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401;€ò òòòAustin€v.€City€of€Memphisóóó ó,€Ð ø$H # Ð684€S.W.2d€624€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€ò òòòInman€v.€Aluminum€Co.€ofÐ ä%4!$ ÐAmericaó óóó,€697€S.W.2d€350€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).ÐÐ& "%` Ã` à ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€442„43.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌà  àConsidering€the€record€in€this€case€as€a€whole,€we€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€hisÐ €*Ð%) Ðdiscretion€in€his€ruling€concerning€the€proposed€evidence.€€Moreover,€a€review€of€the€record€revealsÐ l+¼&* Ðthat€the€trial€court€allowed€the€evidence€into€the€record€in€connection€with€the€allegation€of€materialÐ ° Ðmisrepresentation,€and€that€Allstateððs€counsel€cross„examined€the€plaintiff€in€some€detail€concerningÐ œì Ðthe€prior€fire€losses.€€It€appears€that€all€of€the€evidence€concerning€the€prior€fire€losses€was€introduced,Ð ˆØ Ðand,€therefore,€if€there€was€any€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€initial€ruling€it€was€certainly€harmless.€€ThisÐ tÄ Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` à€III.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€bifurcating€the€trial€of€this€matter?Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAllstate€filed€a€counterclaim€against€Calvin€Johnson€alleging€that€Calvin€Johnsonððs€actionÐ  ` Ðagainst€Allstate€is€not€in€good€faith€and€that€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€Ô#†XEYXXXEY•#ÔÔ‡Xû XXXEYÔððÔ#†XEYX XXû˜S#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔ€56„7„106€(1994)€Allstate€is€entitledÐ ü L  Ðto€damages€not€exceeding€twenty„five€percent€of€the€amount€of€the€loss€claimed€under€the€policy.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€bifurcated€the€trial€as€to€the€original€complaint€and€the€counter„complaint.€Ð À  ÐAllstate€asserts€that€by€doing€so€it€was€prevented€from€putting€on€evidence€of€its€good€faith€in€denyingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€claim.€€Allstateððs€offer€of€proof€consisted€primarily€of€additional€proof€concerning€CalvinÐ ˜è  ÐJohnsonððs€prior€fire€losses€and€insurance€claims,€all€of€which€he€admitted€during€his€crossÐ „Ô  Ðexamination.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòEnnix€v.€Clayó óóó,€703€S.W.2d€137€(Tenn.€1986)€this€Court€said:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThe€decision€whether€or€not€to€sever€the€issues€for€the€jury€must€be€leftÐ  p Ðto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€the€interests€of€justiceÐ  \ Ðwill€warrant€a€bifurcation€of€the€issues€in€only€the€most€exceptionalÐ øH Ðcases€and€upon€a€strong€showing€of€necessity.€€In€making€its€decisionÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€court€should€consider€the€possibility€of€juror€confusion,€theÐ Ð  Ðrisk€of€prejudice€to€either€party,€and€the€needs€of€judicial€efficiency.€Ð ¼  ÐAbove€all,€the€issues€at€trial€must€not€be€bifurcated€unless€the€issue€toÐ ¨ø Ðbe€tried€is€so€distinct€and€separable€from€the€others€that€a€trial€of€itÐ ”ä Ðalone€may€be€had€without€injustice.ЀÐ` Ã` à ÐÌ703€S.W.2d€at€139.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWhile€we€have€some€doubts€that€the€trial€court€properly€exercised€its€discretion€in€regard€toÐ 0"€  Ðbifurcation€in€this€case,€an€examination€of€the€proof€allegedly€kept€from€the€jury€indicates€that€if€theÐ #l! Ðtrial€court€was€in€error€in€bifurcating€the€issues,€the€error€was€actually€harmless€error.€€Therefore,€thisÐ $X" Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àIV.€€Was€Allstate€unduly€prejudiced€by€the€Courtððs€procedural€rulingsÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€point€of€precluding€it€from€receiving€a€fair€trial?и'#&` Ã` à ÐÌÔ#†XEYXXXEYÞS#ÔÔ‡Xû XXXEYÔà  àÔ#†XEYX XXû7]#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔAllstate€asserts€that€the€trial€court€made€several€erroneous€procedural€rulings€which€prohibitedÐ )à$( Ðit€from€having€a€fair€trial.€€First,€Allstate€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Carlene€Y.€Spear,Ð |*Ì%) Ða€general€session€judge€in€Grundy€County,€to€act€as€counsel€on€behalf€of€Steven€Johnson.€€AllstateÐ h+¸&* Ðargues€that€Spearsðð€position€as€an€active€member€of€the€local€judiciary€unduly€and€unfairly€prejudicedÐ ° ÐAllstate.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àT.C.A.€ðð€16„15„5002€(1994)€provides:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àò ò16„15„5002.€€Time€judge€must€devote€to€office€„€Practice€of€law€orÐ L œ Ðother€employment.ó ó€„(a)€All€general€sessions€judges€in€Class€1,€2€or€3Ð 8 ˆ Ðcounties€shall€devote€full€time€to€the€duties€of€such€office€and€shall€beÐ ( x Ðprohibited€from€the€practice€of€law€or€any€other€employment€whichÐ  d Ðconflicts€with€the€performance€of€their€duties€as€judge.Ð P ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(b)€General€Sessions€judges€in€class€4€through€class€8€counties€shall€beÐ Ø(  Ðconsidered€part„time€judges€and€shall€not€be€prohibited€from€theÐ Ä  Ðpractice€of€law€or€other€gainful€employment€while€serving€as€judgeÐ °  Ðexcept€to€the€extent€such€practice€or€employment€constitutes€a€conflictÐ œì  Ðof€interest.ÐˆØ ` Ã` à ÐÌÒe°Òà ½ àGrundy€county€falls€under€section€(b).€€Therefore,€Spear€is€allowed€to€practice€law€unless€aÐ `° Ðconflict€of€interest€is€present.€€Allstate€has€failed€to€show€any€conflict€of€interest€caused€by€SpearððsÐ Lœ Ðrepresentation.€€Further,€Allstate€did€not€object€to€her€representation€at€trial.€€Therefore,€we€find€noÐ 8ˆ Ðreversible€error.€Ô#†XEYXXXEY…]#ÔÔ‡Xû XXXEYÔÐ $t ÐÌà ½ àÔ#†XEYX XXûJe#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔAllstate€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€second€procedural€error€was€in€allowing€plaintiffððs€counselÐ öF Ðand€Stevenððs€counsel€to€confer€regarding€their€peremptory€challenges.€€Allstate€insists€that€this€gaveÐ â2 Ðplaintiff€an€unfair€advantage€and€violates€T.C.A.€ðð€22„3„105€(1994),€which€reads:Ð Î ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àò ò22„3„105.€€Peremptory€challenges€ð!ð€Effect€of€consolidation€of€cases.ó óÐ ¦ö Ð(a)€Either€party€to€a€civil€action€may€challenge€four€(4)€jurors€withoutÐ ’â Ðassigning€any€cause.€(b)€In€the€event€there€is€more€than€one€(1)€partyÐ ~Î Ðplaintiff€or€more€than€one€(1)€party€defendant€in€a€civil€action,€four€(4)Ð jº Ðadditional€challenges€shall€be€allowed€to€such€side€or€sides€of€the€case;Ð V ¦ Ðand€the€trial€court€shall€in€its€discretion€divide€the€aggregate€number€ofÐ B!’ Ðchallenges€between€the€parties€on€the€same€side€which€shall€not€exceedÐ ."~  Ðeight€(8)€challenges€to€the€side,€regardless€of€the€number€of€parties.€Ð #j! ÐEven€when€two€(2)€or€more€cases€are€consolidated€for€trial€purposes,Ð $V" Ðthe€total€challenges€shall€be€eight€(8),€as€herein€provided.€Ðò$B # à à ÐÌà ½ àIn€ò òòòState€v.€Simonó óóó,€635€S.W.2d€498€(Tenn.€1982),€our€Supreme€Court€considered€the€methodÐ Ê&"% Ðfor€exercising€peremptory€challenges€in€a€criminal€case.€€The€trial€court€prohibited€conference€amongÐ ¶'#& Ðcounsel€when€they€sought€to€collaborate€with€each€other€in€the€exercise€of€peremptory€challenges.€€TheÐ ¢(ò#' ÐSupreme€Court€noted€that€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€do€not€prohibit€such€consultationÐ Ž)Þ$( Ðand€held€that€the€preferable€practice€is€to€avoid€duplication.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€508.€€ò òòòó óóóÐ z*Ê%) ÐÐ f+¶&* Ðà ½ àWe€find€nothing€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€or€Tennessee€Code€that€preventsÐ ° Ðparties€from€collaborating€in€the€exercise€of€peremptory€challenges.€€The€ò òòòSimonó óóó€court€noted€this€factÐ œì Ðand€stated€that€the€method€of€exercising€peremptory€challenges€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€507.€€We€find€no€error€in€allowing€counsel€to€collaborate.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€asserts€that€the€third€procedural€error€involves€the€court€ruling€regarding€rebuttalÐ L œ Ðwitnesses.€€Tenn.R.Evid.€615,€Exclusion€of€Witnesses,€was€invoked€for€the€trial.€€At€the€conclusionÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€Allstateððs€proof,€plaintiffððs€counsel€announced€that€he€intended€to€call€Linda€Johnson€as€a€rebuttalÐ $ t Ðwitness,€and€a€discussion€was€had€concerning€the€proper€procedure€for€his€preparing€the€witness€forÐ  ` Ðtestimony.€€The€record€reveals€the€following€colloquy€between€counsel€and€the€court.Ð ü L  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àMS.€COOPER:€With€all€due€respect€to€the€Court,€itððs€my€understandingÐ Ô$  Ðthat€anything€that€is€testified€to€in€this€court€cannot€be€relayed€to€anÐ À  Ðindividual€whoððs€going€to€be€called€to€testify.Ьü  à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àMR.€CLEMENTS:€Well,€I€want€to€make€sure.€€Iððm€not€so€worried€aboutÐ „Ô  Ðthat.€€Obviously€I€cannot€put€a€rebuttal€witness€on€and€ð!ð€to€me,€itððd€beÐ pÀ Ðmalpractice€if€you€donððt€tell€them€what€youððre€going€to€ask€them.Ð\¬ à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àTHE€COURT:€I€donððt€think€thereððs€any€problem€your€telling€them,€theÐ 4„ Ðwitnesses,€the€questions€youððre€going€to€ask.Ð p à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àMR.€CLEMENTS:€I€want€to€tell€the€witness€what€Iððm€going€to€ask€thatÐ øH Ðwitness.Ðä4 à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àTHE€COURT:€Well,€out€of€an€abundance€of€caution,€donððt€tell€themÐ ¼  Ðwhatððs€been€said€in€the€courtroom,€but€certainly€if€you€put€a€witness€onÐ ¨ø Ðyouððve€not€talked€with,€thatððs€dangerous€and€youððve€got€a€right€to€askÐ ”ä Ðhim.ЀРà à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àMR.€CLEMENTS:€And€Iððm€going€to€tell€him€exactly€the€questions€IððmÐ X ¨ Ðgoing€to€ask€him€and€what€it€relates€to.€€I€donððt€intend€to€relate€that€A,Ð D!” ÐB,€C€said€D,€E,€F,€but€Iððve€got€to€give€them€some€factual€background,Ð 0"€  Ðdo€you€know€so„and„so€and€so„and„so.€€I€mean,€otherwise€they€wonððtÐ #l! Ðknow€what€Iððm€talking€about,€but€Iððm€not€going€to€say€that€somebodyÐ $X" Ðtestified€to€so„and„so€thatððs€a€non„party.Ðô$D # à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àI€just€want€to€make€that€clear,€that€Iððve€got€the€right€to€do€that.€€I€donððtÐ Ì&"% Ðthink€thereððs€any€question€about€it,€but€I€do.и'#& à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àTHE€COURT:€I€donððt€see€how€you€can€call€a€rebuttal€witness€unlessÐ )à$( Ðyou€do.Ð|*Ì%) à à ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àMS.€COOPER:€I€agree,€Your€Honor.а à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àTHE€COURT:€Iððm€going€to€trust€that€I€have€ð!ð€and€itððs€been€evidencedÐ ˆØ Ðtoday€ð!ð€very€good€lawyers€in€this€courtroom€to€deal€with€from€all€sides,Ð tÄ Ðand€obviously€Iððve€known€Mr.€Clements€for€25€years.€€Iððm€confidentÐ `° ÐIððve€got€ethical,€competent€attorneys,€and€Iððm€not€going€to€try€to€giveÐ L œ Ðyou€any€guidelines€other€than€that.€€I€think€I€can€rely€on€your€judgmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€stay€within€the€rules,€and€I€suspect€youððll€make€every€effort€to€clearlyÐ $ t Ðstay€within€the€rules.Ð ` à à ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€urges€that€the€trial€court€did€not€comply€with€that€part€of€Rule€615€which€states:Ð è 8  Ðð ðThe€court€shall€order€all€persons€not€to€disclose€by€any€means€to€excluded€witnesses€any€live€trialÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony€or€exhibits€created€in€the€courtroom€by€a€witness.ðð€€We€note€that€the€trial€court€specificallyÐ À  Ðstated,€ð ðWell,€out€of€an€abundance€of€caution€donððt€tell€them€whatððs€been€said€in€the€courtroom.ðð€€WeÐ ¬ü  Ðbelieve€this€statement€by€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€spirit€of€Rule€615.€€The€court€did€not€err€inÐ ˜è  Ðthis€regard.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àV.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€not€finding€that€Calvin€Johnson€failed€to€meetÐ \¬ Ðhis€burden€of€proving€the€fire€loss€to€the€vehicle€was€accidental,€asÐ H˜ Ðrequired€by€the€policy?Ð4„ à à ÐÌÔ#†XEYXXXEY®e#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔà ½ àAllstate€asserts€in€its€fifth€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€requiring€that€plaintiff€prove€theÐ  \ Ðfire€loss€was€accidental.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€vehicle€was€insured€by€Allstate.€€However,€AllstateÐ øH Ðasserts€that€the€loss€was€not€covered€under€the€policy€because€the€fire€loss€was€not€an€ð ðaccidentalðð€loss,Ð ä4 Ðas€required€by€the€policy.€€Allstate€further€asserts€that€plaintiff€had€the€burden€to€prove€the€loss€wasÐ Ð  Ðaccidental,€that€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€such,€and€that,€therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€itsÐ ¼  Ðmotion€for€a€directed€verdict.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ½ àA€claimant€under€an€insurance€policy€must€prove€the€existence€and€validity€of€the€policy€andÐ €Ð Ðthe€details€of€the€claim.€€ò òòòFirst€Am.€Natððl€Bank€v.€Fidelity€&€Deposit€Co.ó óóó,€5€F.3d€982,€984€(6òòthóó€Cir,Ð l¼ Ð1993).€€However,€there€is€a€presumption€that€the€burning€of€property€is€the€result€of€an€accidentalÐ X ¨ Ðcause.€€ò òòòRicketts€v.€Stateó óóó,€241€S.W.2d€604€(Tenn.€1951).€€Further,€plaintiff€testified€that€he€did€not€setÐ D!” Ðthe€fire€and€that€he€did€not€know€who€did.€€A€directed€verdict€is€not€appropriate€when€the€accusedÐ 0"€  Ðtestifies€that€he€did€not€set€fire€to€the€property€in€question€and€that€he€has€no€idea€who€did.€€ò òòòJones€v.€Ð #l! ÐTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Insur.€Co.ó óóó,€896€S.W.2d€553€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€This€is€a€question€forÐ $X" Ðthe€jury.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Further,€Steven€testified€that€he€was€driving€the€vehicle€at€the€time€it€caught€fire€and€thatÐ ô$D # Ðhe€did€not€know€the€cause€of€the€fire.€€Mother€also€testified€that€she€was€following€in€her€vehicleÐ à%0!$ Ðbehind€Son€when€vehicle€caught€fire€and€that€she€saw€no€signs€of€arson.€€We€believe€this€testimonyÐ Ì&"% Ðmeets€plaintiffððs€burden.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà ½ à€€An€insurer€seeking€to€prove€an€arson€defense€has€the€burden€of€proving€all€of€the€requisiteÐ )à$( Ðelements€of€the€defense.€€ò òòòAlexander€v.€Tennessee€Farmerððs€Mut.€Inc.€Co.ó óóó,€905€S.W.2d€177€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) ÐCt.€App.€1995).€€An€insurance€company€must€show€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€(1)€that€the€lossÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€due€to€a€fire€of€incendiary€origin,€(2)€that€the€insured€had€an€opportunity€to€set€the€fire,€and€(3)€thatÐ ° Ðhe€had€a€motive€to€do€so.€€ò òòòMcReynolds€v.€Cherokee€Insur.€Co.ó óóó,€815€S.W.€2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€Ct.€€App.Ð œì Ð1991).€€All€three€elements€must€be€established€by€the€party€attempting€to€prove€arson.€€ò òòòWalters€v.Ð ˆØ ÐTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insur.ó óóó€ò òòòCo.ó óóó,€873€S.W.2d€691,€694€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€is€apparently€contending€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€it€aÐ L œ Ðdirected€verdict.€€We€find€no€such€error.€€ð ðThe€constitutional€right€to€a€jury€trial€requires€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsubmission€of€the€case€to€the€jury€except€where€there€is€no€doubt€as€to€the€conclusion€to€be€drawn€fromÐ $ t Ðthe€whole€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòJones€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€896€S.W.2d€553,€555€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  ` ÐApp.€1994).€€Plaintiffððs€fifth€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àÔ#†XEYXXXEYˆ#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔVI.€€Did€the€Court€improperly€instruct€the€jury€on€Allstateððs€burden€ofÐ Ô$  Ðestablishing€the€defense€of€misrepresentation€of€the€loss,€therebyÐ À  Ðcommitting€reversible€error?Ô#†XEYXXXEY“#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔЬü  à à ÐÌÔ#†XEYXXXEY§#ÔÔ‡Xû XXXEYÔà ½ àÔ#†XEYX XXû ‘#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔIn€its€sixth€issue,€Allstate€asserts€that€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€regardingÐ „Ô  ÐAllstateððs€burden€of€establishing€the€defense€of€misrepresentation€of€the€loss.€€Allstate€requested€a€Ð pÀ Ðmodification€of€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€13.24€on€the€defense€of€misrepresentation€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€loss.€€Allstate€requested€that€the€instruction€be€modified€to€add€that€an€insured€may€void€the€policyÐ H˜ Ðby€swearing€with€disregard€for€truth,€or€swearing€to€the€truth€of€facts€which€the€insured€does€not€knowÐ 4„ Ðto€be€true.Ð  p ÐÌà ½ àThe€trial€court€denied€Allstateððs€request€and€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!à[B]efore€you€may€find€that€the€pà8@# à Ãàolicy€has€been€voided€under€the€fraud€or€false€swearing€provision€of€the€policy,€you€must€find€fromÐ Ð  Ða€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€plaintiff€made€misrepresentations€as€to€material€matters€andÐ ¼  Ðthat€he€did€so€willfully€and€with€the€intent€to€deceive€the€insurer.€€If€you€find€that€the€plaintiffÐ ¨ø Ðintentionally€made€false€statements€in€its€proof€of€loss€as€to€the€value€or€if€you€find€that€he€intentionallyÐ ”ä Ðmade€false€statements€to€the€insurer€concerning€the€cause€and€the€origin€of€the€fire,€the€whole€policyÐ €Ð Ðis€voided€and€the€plaintiff€cannot€recover.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà ½ àThe€trial€courtððs€instruction€is€consistent€with€the€law€in€Tennessee.€€In€ò òòòBoston€Manuf.€Insur.Ð D!” ÐCo.€v.€Scalesó óóó,€101€Tenn.€629,€99€S.W.€742€(1899),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€distinguishedÐ 0"€  Ðbetween€false€statements€made€in€the€application€for€insurance€from€those€made€subsequent€to€theÐ #l! Ðissuance€of€the€policy.€€The€court€stated€that€material€misrepresentations€made€in€a€proof€of€lossÐ $X" Ðstatement€do€not€void€an€insurance€policy,€unless€evidence€establishes,€on€the€plainest€grounds,€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€misrepresentations€were€willfully€and€knowingly€made€with€the€intent€to€deceive€or€defraud€theÐ à%0!$ Ðinsurer.€€99€S.W.€at€746;€ò òòòsee€also€Nix€v.€Sentry€Ins.ó óóó,€666€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€Ð Ì&"% ÐTherefore,€we€find€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àVII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€making€a€number€of€invalid€evidentiaryÐ )à$( Ðrulings,€prejudicing€Allstate€to€the€point€of€precluding€a€fair€trial?Ð|*Ì%) à à ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ#†XEYXXXEYW‘#ÔÔ‡Xû XXXEYÔà ½ àÔ#†XEYX XXû&œ#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔAllstate€asserts€that€the€trial€court€made€erroneous€evidentiary€rulings€which€precluded€it€fromÐ ° Ðreceiving€a€fair€trial.€€The€trial€court€is€afforded€wide€discretion€in€the€admission€or€rejection€ofÐ œì Ðevidence,€and€the€trial€court's€action€will€be€reversed€on€appeal€only€when€there€is€a€showing€of€anÐ ˆØ Ðabuse€of€discretion.€ò òòò€Otis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€850€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.€1992);€òòò ò€Davis€v.Ð tÄ ÐHalló óóó,€920€S.W.2d€213,€217€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ð `° ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€as€plaintiffððs€rebuttal€proof€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestimony€of€Glen€Doyle€Myers€who€was€not€previously€identified€on€plaintiffððs€witness€list.€€PlaintiffÐ $ t Ðpoints€out€that€the€Tennessee€twelfth€judicial€district,€local€rule€11.01,€excludes€rebuttal€andÐ  ` Ðimpeachment€witnesses€from€the€obligation€to€exchange€witness€lists€prior€to€trial.€€Allstate€asserts€thatÐ ü L  Ðlocal€rule€11.01€contradicts€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02,€which€€permits€parties€to€discover€the€identity€ofÐ è 8  Ðall€persons€having€relevant€knowledge€of€any€discoverable€matter,€including€the€facts€relevant€to€anyÐ Ô$  Ðclaim€or€defense€involved€in€the€litigation.€€€€Ð À  ÐÌà ½ à€It€is€well€settled€that€the€trial€courts€of€this€state€have€the€authority€to€make€and€implementÐ ˜è  Ðreasonable€local€rules€of€practice€and€procedure€in€their€respective€courts,€as€long€as€these€local€rulesÐ „Ô  Ðdo€not€conflict€with€a€substantive€rule€of€state€law.òòò ò€€Richie€v.€Liberty€Cash€Grocers,€Inc.ó óóó€63€Tenn.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€311,€471€S.W.2d€559,€560€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1971);€€òòò òBrown€v.€Dalyó óóó,€884€S.W.2d€121,€123€(Tenn.Ð \¬ ÐCt.€App.1994);òòò ò€€Pettus€v.€Hurstó óóó,€882€S.W.2d€783,€786€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1993).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà ½ àWe€can€not€find€that€local€rule€11.01€contradicts€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26.02.€€€Rule€11.02€deals€withÐ  p Ðthe€exchange€of€witness€lists€prior€to€trial;€it€has€nothing€to€do€with€the€scope€of€pretrial€discoveryÐ  \ Ðpermitted€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€26.€€We€have€no€record€of€what€transpired€when€Allstateððs€counsel€objectedÐ øH Ðto€Myersððs€testimony.€€In€the€absence€of€such€a€record,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ ä4 Ðallowing€the€testimony.€We€find€this€issue€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introduction€into€evidence€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðpublication€titled€ð ðMitsubishi€Eclipse,€Plymouth€Blazer,€and€Eagle€Talon,€1990€to€1994,€All€ModelsððÐ ”ä Ðwhich€Steven€Johnson€testified€on€rebuttal€that€he€purchased€from€the€Autozone€in€Manchester,Ð €Ð ÐTennessee€the€night€before€his€testimony.€€The€page€of€the€publication€showing€the€location€of€the€fuseÐ l¼ Ðbox€was€allowed€into€evidence€over€the€objection€of€Allstate.€€Allstate€argues€that€the€publication€isÐ X ¨ Ðhearsay€and€should€have€been€excluded€by€the€court.€€Rule€801,€Tenn.R.Evid.€states:€Ð D!” ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àò òRule€801.€€Definitions.€ó ó„€The€following€definitions€apply€under€thisÐ #l! Ðarticle:Ð $\" à à Ðà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!à(a)€Statement.€€„€A€ð ðstatementðð€is€(1)€an€oral€or€written€assertion€or€(2)Ð ø$H # Ðnonverbal€conduct€of€a€person€if€it€is€intended€by€the€person€as€anÐ ä%4!$ Ðassertion.ÐÐ& "% à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!à(b)€Declarant.€„€A€ð ðdeclarantðð€is€a€person€who€makes€a€statement.Ш(ø#' à à Ðâ âÐ ”)ä$( Ðà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!à(c)€Hearsay.€„€ð ðHearsayðð€is€a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€theÐ ° Ðdeclarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€toÐ œì Ðprove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.ÐˆØ Ã Ã Ðâ âÌà ½ àThe€publication€is€a€written€assertion€offered€to€prove€the€location€of€the€fuse€box;€thus,€toÐ `° Ðprove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€€Therefore,€unless€within€an€exception€of€the€hearsay€rule,€theÐ L œ Ðpublication€should€have€been€excluded,€and€we€find€no€such€exception.€€Plaintiff€asserts€that€the€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€can€take€judicial€notice€of€the€publication,€as€provided€for€in€Tenn.R.Evid.€201.€€We€disagreeÐ $ t Ðwith€this€assertion.Ð  ` ÐÌà ½ àAlthough€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€publication,€from€our€review€of€the€entire€record,Ð è 8  Ðit€appears€that€the€admission€of€this€document€is€harmless€error.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€certain€witness€testimony.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAllstateððs€brief€states:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àThe€Court€also€failed€to€allow€key€defense€witnesses€to€testifyÐ pÀ Ðbefore€the€jury€of€twelve€(12)€regarding€the€reputation€and€character€ofÐ \¬ ÐCalvin€Johnson€and€Steven€Johnson.€€Further,€the€Court€refused€toÐ H˜ Ðallow€the€same€defense€witnesses€to€testify€regarding€the€JohnsonððsÐ 4„ Ðhistory€for€arson€in€the€community€and€general€reputation€andÐ  p Ðpropensity€for€untruthfulness.€€Such€inquiries€were€made€via€an€offer€ofÐ  \ Ðproof€outside€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€and€the€jury€was€not€permittedÐ øH Ðto€weigh€this€compelling€evidence€in€reaching€their€verdict.Ðä4 à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àAs€a€basis€for€admissibility€of€evidence€as€to€the€character,Ð ¼  Ðreputation,€history€of€truthfulness€in€the€community,€and€propensity€forÐ ¨ø Ðarson,€Allstate€would€show€this€Honorable€Court€that€this€was€a€caseÐ ”ä Ðinvolving€allegations€of€insurance€fraud.€€As€such,€a€partiesðð€credibility,Ð €Ð Ðpropensity€for€truthfulness€or€lack€thereof,€moral€turpitude,€andÐ l¼ Ðreputation€and€history€of€similar€acts€is€relevant€pursuant€to€TennesseeÐ X ¨ ÐRule€of€Evidence€401.€€As€was€previously€addressed,€such€informationÐ D!” Ðis€also€relevant€pursuant€to€Rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ 0"€  ÐEvidence.€€A€partyððs€character,€propensity€for€truthfulness€orÐ #l! Ðuntruthfulness,€and€reputation€in€the€community€can€be€proven€and€areÐ $X" Ðalso€relevant€pursuant€to€Rules€405€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ô$D # ÐEvidence,€608,€and€803€(21).Ðà%0!$ à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àRule€405€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€permitsÐ ¸'#& Ðintroduction€of€evidence€of€character€or€a€trait€of€character€of€a€person,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðand€states€that€"proof€may€be€made€by€testimony€as€to€reputation€or€byÐ )à$( Ðtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405.Ð|*Ì%) à à ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àFurther,€Rule€608€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€allowsÐ ° Ðintroduction€of€specific€instances€of€conduct,€such€as€prior€criminal€actsÐ œì Ðor€arson€acts,€and€such€evidence€is€clearly€probative€of€the€truthfulnessÐ ˆØ Ðor€untruthfulness€of€the€parties€in€this€litigation.€€Rule€608€states€in€factÐ tÄ Ðthat€ð ð[t]he€credibility€of€a€witness€may€be€attacked€or€supported€byÐ `° Ðevidence€in€the€form€of€opinion€or€reputation.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608.€Ð L œ Ðð ðThe€particular€trait€of€truthfulness,€however,€is€always€an€issue€whenÐ 8 ˆ Ða€witness€testifies.ðð€€ò òòòState€v.€Westó óóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€149€(Tenn.€1992).Ð$ t à à ÐÌà ½ àIt€is€difficult€from€the€record€to€determine€precisely€the€offer€of€proof€made€because,€for€theÐ ü L  Ðmost€part,€the€offer€of€proof€was€made€in€a€summary€fashion;€more€or€less€a€colloquy€between€theÐ è 8  Ðcourt€and€Allstateððs€counsel.€€We€quote€from€the€record.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àTHE€COURT:€And€all€that€testimony,€I€will€allow€to€come€inÐ ¬ü  Ðon€the€bad€faith€claim,€if€and€when€we€get€there.Ð˜è  Ã Ã ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àMS.€COOPER:€In€addition,€Your€Honor,€for€offers€of€proofÐ pÀ Ðpurposes,€I€have€subpoenaed€a€witness€by€the€name€of€Jerry€Prater,€whoÐ \¬ Ðis€a€volunteer€fire€department€personnel€member,€who€is€aware€of€theÐ H˜ ÐJohnson€fires€history€and€Ms.€Carolyn€Baker.€I€misstated€her€name€onÐ 4„ Ðthe€subpoena.€€Ms.€Rollins€is€the€individual€that€I€asked€for€a€sidebarÐ  p Ðon,€and€for€the€purposes€of€clarifying€the€record,€Ms.€Rollins€is€goingÐ  \ Ðto€testify€not€only€about€the€prior€fires€but€about€some€of€the€credibilityÐ øH Ðand€impeachment€components€I€wanted€to€use€against€the€plaintiff.Ðä4 à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àThere€have€been€some€allegations€of€threats€and€additionalÐ ¼  Ðinformation€I€wanted€to€get€out€of€her,€but€I€was€afraid€to€do€so€beforeÐ ¨ø Ðthe€jury€for€the€simple€reason€that€those€allegations€overlap€the€fact€thatÐ ”ä Ðthat€fire€was€occurring.ЀРà à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àTHE€COURT:€€€It€might€be€useful€for€me,€and€since€the€juryððsÐ X ¨ Ðgone,€why€donððt€you€just€put€that€witness€on€and€give€me€theÐ D!” Ðopportunity€to€hear€that€firsthand€and€then€I€can€make€a€more€sensibleÐ 0"€  Ðruling?Ð#l! à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àMS.€COOPER:€Would€Your€Honor€like€to€hear,€in€summary,Ð ô$D # ÐJerry€Praterððs€testimony?Ðà%0!$ à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àTHE€COURT:€If€you€will,€we€might€release€him.€€Letððs€go€toÐ ¸'#& Ðhim€and€discuss€that.Ф(ô#' à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àMS.€COOPER:€Mr.€Prater€was€going€to€testify€that€he€actuallyÐ |*Ì%) Ðresponded€to€four€of€the€other€Calvin€Johnson€fires,€one€that€occurredÐ h+¸&* Ð15€to€20€years€ago,€a€house€trailer€fire€in€October€of€1992,€a€frameÐ ° Ðhouse€fire,€and€that€he€is€aware€due€to€the€fact€that€he€is€a€volunteerÐ œì Ðfireman€of€reputation€of€multiple€additional€fires€in€the€Grundy€CountyÐ ˆØ Ðarea.€€He€actually€responded€to€and€is€aware€of€this€car€fire.€€HisÐ tÄ Ðcolleagues,€more€or€less€from€various€rural€fire€departments,€and€heÐ `° Ðhave€discussed€the€Calvin€Johnson€reputation€in€the€community,€whichÐ L œ ÐI€do€believe€is€at€issue€in€this€trial,€and€they€have€quite€a€reputation€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðmultiple,€numerous€fires€and€have€actually€been€referred€to€among€localÐ $ t Ðfire€departments€as€arson€bugs,€Your€Honor.Ð ` à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àTHE€COURT:€I€donððt€know€that€Iððm€going€to€let€you€put€theÐ è 8  Ðreputation€of€ð ðarson€bugsðð€in€on€the€bad€faith€claim,€but€Iððm€going€toÐ Ô$  Ðrule€that€that€witness€would€come€in,€if€at€all,€on€the€bad€faith€portionÐ À  Ðbifurcated.Ьü  à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àMS.€COOPER:€What€about€the€young€lady?Ð„Ô  à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àMR.€CLEMENTS:€Cottrell.Ð\¬ à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àTHE€COURT:€I€cut€you€off€on€the€question€you€asked.€€YouÐ 4„ Ðsaid€you€wanted€to€make€a€ð!ðÐ p à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àMS.€COOPER:€Please,€Your€Honor.€€Thank€you€for€remindingÐ øH Ðme€about€one.Ðä4 à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àThe€same€thing€actually.€€No,€I€take€that€back.€€It€was€Ms.Ð ¼  ÐCottrell.Шø à à ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àFor€purposes€of€offer€of€proof,€itððs€Defendantððs€position€thatÐ €Ð Ðonce€Ms.€Cottrell€had€exclaimed€Tom€Steel€was€extremely€upset€afterÐ l¼ Ðdiscussing€the€situation€with€Steven€and€Calvin€Johnson,€that€TomÐ X ¨ ÐSteel€relayed€the€fact€that€the€Johnsons€were€asking€him€to€lie€for€him.€Ð D!” ÐAgain,€he€told€them€he€wasnððt€going€to€do€it.€€The€quote€is,€ð ðI€wonððt€lieÐ 0"€  Ðfor€that€dumb€son€of€a€bitch.ðð€€It€is€my€opinion€that€the€response€to€theÐ #l! Ðobjection€that€was€going€to€be€stated€on€the€record,€that€was€anÐ $X" Ðexception€of€the€hearsay€rule€of€Tom€Steel€due€to€his€then€existingÐ ô$D # Ðemotional€state,€of€the€803„3€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,Ð à%0!$ ÐExcited€Utterance,€803„3.€€Itððs€a€statement€of€rule€of€interest€under€840„Ð Ì&"% Ð3€because€were€he€to€acquiesce,€heððd€be€submitting€himself€to€perjurousÐ ¸'#& Ðtestimony,€and€then€subsequent€to€that€conversation,€that€response,€TomÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSteel€drove€Shannon€Cottrell€and€Shane€Tate€by€Steven€JohnsonððsÐ )à$( Ðâ âtrailer,€pointed€out€the€remains€of€the€burned€car,€and€said,€quote,Ð |*Ì%) Ðð ðThatððs€the€damn€car€they€wanted€me€to€lie€about,€Iððm€not€going€to€doÐ ° Ðit.ððМì à à Ðâ âÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àTHE€COURT:€And€Iððm€sustaining€the€objection.€€All€Right.ÐtÄ Ã Ã Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àAn€offer€of€proof€was€made€of€the€testimony€of€Carolyn€Baker€Rollins.€€She€testified€that€sheÐ L œ Ðlived€at€441€Hickerson€Road,€Manchester,€Tennessee,€and€that€her€property€is€located€near€the€propertyÐ 8 ˆ Ðowned€by€Calvin€Johnson.€€Her€parents€own€the€home€across€the€road€from€the€Johnson€property€onÐ $ t ÐHickerson€Road.€€Both€the€Johnsons€and€her€parents€lived€at€the€same€location€about€fifteen€years€ago.€Ð  ` ÐShe€was€questioned€concerning€an€incident€that€occurred€about€that€time€when€the€Johnsons€had€aÐ ü L  Ðhome€that€burned€down.€€She€testified€that€she€was€living€with€her€parents€at€the€time,€and€it€wasÐ è 8  Ðgetting€late€and€she€saw€a€lamp€on€in€the€window€of€the€Johnson€home.€€She€said€that€later€she€smelledÐ Ô$  Ðsomething€burning€and€remarked€to€her€father€that€something€was€burning.€€She€then€noticed€that€theÐ À  ÐJohnson€house€was€on€fire,€so€she€called€911.€€She€stated€that€she€had€seen€the€Johnsons€leave€earlierÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€afternoon€and€that€they€were€not€home€at€the€time.€€She€testified€that€she€spoke€to€Linda€JohnsonÐ ˜è  Ðsome€time€after€that,€and€she€could€not€recall€anything€because€it€was€such€a€long€time€ago.€€SheÐ „Ô  Ðremembers€something€about€who€called€the€fire€department,€and€she€told€Linda€Johnson€that€she€calledÐ pÀ Ðthe€fire€department.€€She€testified€that€her€feeling€was€that€it€was€not€appreciated€that€she€called€theÐ \¬ Ðfire€department.€€She€further€testified€that€she€had€heard€about€some€other€fires€on€the€JohnsonÐ H˜ Ðproperty,€such€as€a€trailer€burning€after€the€house€was€burned.€€She€testified€that€she€had€just€heard€thatÐ 4„ Ðand€knows€about€it€because€she€lived€in€Murfreesboro€at€the€time.€€The€court€questioned€herÐ  p Ðconcerning€the€conversation€she€had€with€Linda€Johnson.€€She€responded€to€the€court€that€she€didnððtÐ  \ Ðhave€any€idea€about€what€was€said,€that€it€was€fifteen€or€sixteen€years€ago,€and€she€just€did€notÐ øH Ðremember.Ð ä4 ÐÌà ½ àThe€offers€of€proof€fall€short€of€attacking€the€reputation€of€the€plaintiff€for€truth€and€veracity.€Ð ¼  ÐThe€verbatim€testimony€of€Ms.€Rollins€concerning€an€episode€of€15€or€16€years€before€the€trial€aptlyÐ ¨ø Ðdemonstrates€the€quirks€of€memory.€€From€our€review€of€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€cannot€say€that€theÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€proffered€evidence.Ð €Ð ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€Allstate€to€put€on€witnesses€toÐ X ¨ Ðtestify€as€to€the€integrity€and€character€of€its€witness,€Tom€Steel.€€Allstate€contends€that€because€CalvinÐ D!” Ðand€Steven€Johnson€contradicted€Steeleððs€testimony,€it€was€an€attack€on€his€character.€€In€Neil€P.Ð 0"€  ÐCohen,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€Ô#†XEYXXXEYtœ#ÔÔ‡Xû XXXEYÔððÔ#†XEYX XXû·à#ÔÔ‡XEYXXXEYÔ€€608.11€(3d€ed.€1995),€it€is€stated:Ð #l! ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àòòAttack€on€character€ó󀄀A€witness€can€be€rehabilitated€only€after€theÐ ô$D # Ðwitnessððs€character€for€truthfulness€has€been€attacked.€€Rule€608€doesÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€indicate€what€constitutes€an€attack€on€credibility.€€Obviously€anÐ Ì&"% Ðattack€on€character€occurs€if€an€opinion€or€reputation€witness€testifiesÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€the€witness€has€a€character€for€untruthfulness.€€Other€methods€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðattack,€triggering€the€right€to€rehabilitate€the€witness,€includeÐ )à$( Ðintroduction€of€a€prior€criminal€conviction,€Rule€609,€prior€specificÐ |*Ì%) Ðacts,€Rule€608(b),€and€proof€that€the€witness€has€been€corrupted.€Ð h+¸&* ÐConversely,€it€is€widely€held€that€a€witnessððs€character€is€not€attackedÐ ° Ðsimply€by€proving€that€the€witness€is€biased.€€However,€if€the€groundÐ œì Ðof€bias€is€a€form€of€corruption,€such€as€taking€a€bribe,€rehabilitativeÐ ˆØ Ðcharacter€evidence€may€be€admissible.ÐtÄ Ã Ã ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àà m àSeveral€methods€of€impeachment€may€or€may€not€constitute€anÐ L œ Ðattack€on€a€witnessððs€character€for€truthfulness,€depending€on€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstances.€€The€critical€question€is€whether€the€proof€is€suggestingÐ $ t Ðthat€the€witness€has€an€untruthful€character.€€òòò òContradiction€was€citedÐ  ` Ðby€the€Advisory€Committee€to€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence€as€anÐ ü L  Ðimpeachment€mode€that€does€not€necessarily€engender€an€attack€onÐ ä 4  Ðtruthful€character.ó óóó€€Contradiction€proof€can€simply€be€used€to€establishÐ Ì  Ðthat€the€witness,€though€a€truthful€person,€is€forgetful.€€Similarly,€a€priorÐ ¸  Ðinconsistent€statement€or€a€vigorous€cross„examination€does€not€alwaysÐ ¤ô  Ðsuggest€the€witness€has€an€untruthful€character,€but€the€facts€of€eachÐ à  Ðcase€mus€t€be€examined€carefully.€€(Emphasis€added).Ð|Ì  à à ÐÌÓ€    (àÈx3Óà ½ àà  àà m àà Å à*à0  àà0us#s#à*à0Íus#us#àà0%Ís#Ís#à*ÐT¤%s#%s# ÐÌà ½ àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€do€not€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€notÐ ,| Ðallowing€the€proffered€testimony.Ð h ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½!½!àVIII.€€Did€the€Court€err€in€proffering€an€incorrect€jury€verdict€form,Ð ð@ Ðthereby€confusing€the€jury€and€committing€prejudicial,€reversible€error?ÐÜ, à à ÐÌà ½ àAllstate€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€giving€an€incorrect€instruction€to€the€jury€on€the€juryÐ ´ Ðverdict€form€itself.€€The€instruction€erroneously€stated€that€if€the€jury€answered€Question€No.€2€ð ðno,ððÐ  ð Ðthen€they€should€go€directly€to€Question€No.€4.€€The€court€noticed€this€error€after€the€jury€came€backÐ ŒÜ Ðleaving€Question€No.€3€unanswered.€€When€the€court€noticed€the€error,€he€reinstructed€the€jury€thatÐ xÈ Ðthey€needed€to€respond€to€Question€No.€3€regardless€of€what€answer€they€had€given€to€Question€No.Ð d´ Ð2.€€The€jury€left€and€after€further€deliberation€answered€Question€No.€3.€€Ð P   ÐÌà ½ àThe€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€and€sent€the€jury€back€to€complete€the€jury€verdictÐ ("x  Ðform.€€We€find€no€prejudice€to€Allstate€in€this€inadvertent€error€which€was€promptly€corrected€by€theÐ #d! Ðcourt€upon€discovery.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð $P" ÐÌà ½ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€the€jury€verdict€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€theÐ Ø%(!$ Ðtrial€court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€againstÐ Ä&"% Ðthe€appellant,€Allstate€Insurance€Company.Ô#†XEYXXXEYýà#ÔÔ#†¼u»XXEY #ÔÔ€XEYX»¼uÔÐ °'#& ÐÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u à__________________________________________Ð ˆ)Ø$( Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.