WPCq& # VUNa % 0w@ 4  B 0?0 0Do  0J  0T  0^_ 0h 0r% 0| 0 0 1u) 0dU>U*@B)jDC AM D3#U*V 0@+kv~{v AO$% 0D% D/%& BT&HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(3c$7|XXdXXd7  HTXXTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT DDDDDUӀf|$3|x d((3`$ 3c!7XXdd7  HXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   `   0  (#$  0  H2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G 'dxd<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#%    H %\RA'\  ++   YYY FILED+X June25,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.+AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !  #d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %Whichwasdismissedfromthecase.CounselfortheappellantstatedduringargumentthatwhiletheNoticeofAppealwas fromtheJudgment,itwasnothisintenttoappealthedismissalofAthensInsuranceCo.Inanyevent,theappellanthasstatednoissueswithrespecttothedismissalofAthensInsuranceCo.  !#d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %Mr.RedmonddeniedthatStateFarmdeclinedtorenewthepolicy,statingthat she[theagentforStateFarm]saidshedidnthaveapolicytocoverawoodheater.  !#d#%    H %\RA'\   $       %Inthisconnection,theplaintiffsbelievedthatthepremiumwouldbelowerforasmallerhouse.Thisfact,whileinteresting,isnotcrucialtoaresolutionofthecase.PerhapsofequalinterestisthefactthattheplaintiffswereinTownsend,inBlountCounty,asthetimeofthefire.Mrs.RedmondwasnotifiedbytelephoneatsevenoclockA.M.ofthefire;shedidnottellherhusband.Theyhadbreakfast,tooktheirgrandchildrenswimming,packed,andbeganthetwohourjourneyhome.Theystoppedforlunch,afterwhichMr.Redmondwastoldofthefire.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %#&&Xd#    H %\RA'\    ћ7XdXXd7   %  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATKNOXVILLE  ӜR),(A1-j| ` . `@Rߛ ROBERTREDMONDandwife, )RUBYREDMOND,   ) McMINNCHANCERY      ) Plaintiffs/Appellees  ) NO.3A019801CH00034      )v.      ) HON.EARLHENLEY      ) CHANCELLORGREATAMERICANINSURANCE )COMPANIESand    )ATHENSINSURANCE   )COMPANY,    )      ) REVERSEDand  Defendants/Appellants  ) DISMISSED JeffreyL.Cunningham,Athens,forAppellant,GreatAmericanIns.Co.CharlesE.Ridenour,Sweetwater,forAppellees. @ % OPINION%       INMAN,SeniorJudge ThisisanactiontorecoveronapolicyoffireinsuranceissuedonAugust9,1994byGreatAmericanInsuranceCompanythroughitslocalagency,AthensInsuranceCompany. .   כTheinsuredpropertywasdestroyedbyfireonJuly2,1995.Coveragewasdeniedbecausetheclaimantsmadeamaterialmisrepresentationintheirapplicationforthepolicy.TheChancellorfoundthattheplaintiffsmisrepresentedtheirlosshistory,butheldthattheunrevealedlosswasnotmaterialandallowedarecovery.Thedefendantappealsandpresentsforreviewtheissueofwhethertheconcealmentofapriorlossfromwinddamagewasamaterialmisrepresentationwhichincreasedtheriskofloss,andthusvoidedthepolicy.OurreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialCourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialCourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d);Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26(Tenn.1996). TheplaintiffspropertywasinitiallyinsuredbyStateFarmFireandCasualtyCompany.In1993anoutbuildingwasdamagedbyawindstormandthelosswaspaid.StateFarmdeclinedtorenewthepolicy. /   ׀TheplaintiffstheninquiredoftheAthensInsuranceCompany,anindependentagency,ifcoveragecouldbearrangedontheirresidence. Mrs.Redmondandherdaughter,BarbaraWattenbarger,providedtherequisiteinformationtotheagencybytelephone.TheapplicationtoGreatAmericanwasprocessedandmailedtotheplaintiffswhotimelyreceivedit.Oneofthequestionsontheapplicationwaswhethertheplaintiffshad anylosseswithinthelastthreeyears,whichtheyanswered,no;anotherquestionwaswhetheranycoveragehadbeendeclined,canceled,ornonrenewedduringthelastthreeyears,whichtheyanswered,no;anotherinquirywasdirectedtothenumberofrooms(6),andthesquarefootageofthehouse,(2,236). Theseresponseswerefalse,because(1)apriorlosshadoccurred,(2)StateFarm,forwhateverreason,haddeclinedtorenewitspolicy,and(3)theresidencewaslargerthanasrepresented. 0   כTheplaintiffsofferedtestimony,obfuscatingtoanextent,thatwhentheyreviewedthepreparedapplicationandbecameawareoftheincorrectanswers,theycalledanemployeeoftheinsuranceagencytosetthematterright.Thiswasdeniedbytheemployee;othercircumstancesredoundedagainsttheplaintiffstestimony.Inanyevent,theplaintiffsdidnotcorrecttheadmittedlyfalseanswers,astheymighteasilyhavedone.SufficetosaythattheChancellorfoundagainsttheplaintiffsonthispoint,statingthat ...theCourtdoesnotbelievetheycarrytheburdenofprooftoshowtheyhadrevealedthepreviouslosstotheagency.Thisconclusionissupportedbythepreponderanceoftheevidence. ButtheChancellordeclinedtovoidthepolicy,findingthatthe omission[torevealthepriorloss]wasnotintentional,andthatthe windlosswassotrivialandinnowayconnectedtoafirelossthatthepolicyshouldnotbevoided. T.C.A.567103provides:  8 MisrepresentationorwarrantywillnotavoidpolicyExceptions. Nowrittenororalmisrepresentationorwarrantythereinmadeinthenegotiationsofacontractorpolicyofinsurance,orintheapplicationtherefor,bytheinsuredorintheinsuredsbehalf,shallbedeemedmaterialordefeatorvoidthepolicyorpreventitsattaching,unlesssuchmisrepresentationorwarrantyismadewithactualintenttodeceive,orunlessthematterrepresentedincreasestheriskofloss.[Acts1895,ch.160]   Theappellantcontendsthatasamatteroflawthefailureoftheappelleestodisclosethepriorlossvoidsthepolicy,andthereisabundantauthoritytosupportthisargument.Foramisrepresentationtoincreasetheriskoflosswithinthemeaningofthestatute,thefactmisrepresentedneednotnecessarilybeonethatcausesorcontributestotheactualloss;ifthemattermisrepresentedincreasestheriskinvolvedintheissuanceofthepolicythecompanymayavoidthecontract.IndependentLifeIns.Co.v.Russell,80S.W.2d846(Tenn.App.1934).ThecourtsofthisStatehavelongheldthatamisrepresentationincreasesthelossifitinfluencesthejudgmentoftheinsurerinmakingthecontract.Seatonv.NationalGrange,732S.W.2d288(Tenn.App.1987);Medleyv.CimmaronIns.Co.,514S.W.2d426(Tenn.1974);Broylesv.FordLifeIns.Co.,594S.W.2d691(Tenn.1980).See,Overtonv.AutoOwnersIns.Co.,Tenn.Ct.App.No.01A019308CV00342,March18,1994.ThecaseofMilliganv.MFAMutualIns.Co.,497S.W.2d736(Tenn.App.1973)isinstructive.There,theapplicantfalselyrepresentedthatnootherinsurancecompanyhadrefusedtorenewapolicy.Wefoundthatsuchamisrepresentationwould naturallyandmateriallyinfluencethejudgmentanddecisionofthecompanytowhichapplicationismade,anddoesincreasetheriskofloss. Inthisconnection,RosemaryHarris,anofficeroftheGreatAmericanIns.Company,testified,inconsiderabledetail,thatapriorlossgeneratesasubstantiallossratiobecause,statistically,theriskoffuturelossisincreased,andthatGreatAmerican wouldnothavewrittenthisifwehadknowntheoutbuildinghadblownaway.TheChancellorthoughtthatthepriorloss[atrivialthing]ofanoutbuildinginawindstormhadnoconnectionwiththelaterfireloss,andthusheldthatthemisrepresentationwasnotmaterial.Butasheldinalonglineofcases,iftheconcealmentofthelosswassuchastoinfluencethejudgmentofGreatAmerican,thepolicywassubjecttoavoidance.Themonetaryamountofthepriorlossisnotcontrolling.AsstatedinClinganv.VulcanLifeIns.Co.,694S.W.2d327(Tenn.App.1985), theundisclosedinformationwasnecessarytoanhonestappraisalofinsurability.Thefactthatthepriorlosswasrelativelysmall[circa$1,500.00]orthatithadnoconnectionwiththelaterfireloss,isirrelevant.Thedefendantwasentitledtotheinformationinordertomakeaninformedjudgmentaboutwhethertocontractwiththeplaintiffs,sincethe factsmisrepresentedneednotbewithreferencetoahazardwhichactuallyproducedthelossinquestion.Loydv.FarmersMutualFireIns.Co.,838S.W.2dat542(Tenn.App.1992). Thejudgmentisreversedandthecaseisdismissedatthecostsoftheappellees.      _______________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge̜CONCUR:̛̜̜_______________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,Judge̜_______________________________̜CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge