ÿWPC" & Œò3MÞÕ>§Sö±Hð æücì8Ÿ{ MÛÕ3aȉì0±f§oFñWZ'ÂLk*Y#ÌFŽ=ÔOçëKKÓà?®NìûI&¡± ²Æ01~;¿u£ˆÞ•³k‚)~ ;1ߟ¯“ØðÔú͆²0GÙÑÑnC8~kCÕºÛÿ»åcÃ)JÑÝ×lûüss)]–0äïö0 tëIÍÎÂè•óýα?ƒâ§¹/Fø˜ 76õÈ@Ôÿõ|©ß(üQE]|Í»ÀƒœƒWÙ>î %+·Kµ5sÒl "¤½„ÙI%fKŸo»øª?;µIã?¶TªËÙ–¨Öæ²bE³ÖRœ[f^tNg\ CÄñ–<–cÒÖx%ýQÖᦄA“XÒ¯ÖwYøI–yn Çô¿Áô|Ätù‡ê:ÎG§Q«|?Í7^@Ï'†õÊ¢VßHMéq”õrT6X8-…€>ÇvAñ“n:[ýóô2¸i¦e-É/~t|VL¤_YÔ³]«–`#-'˜É6rd(±âøDød kÈ!û+ùöñ^~5Šl–.K²W5[~·¬!Öß|b öÁ¸ 9Û/EØ+òb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U$N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ 0D™ ÆÝ Æ£ ÆiÆ/UNõNCùEU>>E|-~p«A¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¢ùùùùùùùùùb›››››››››››››› 0Y££££££££££££££££££££££ 0ëüüüü Bçç 0¤ D5¨ D-Ý 0K   ASUƨ 0¤n 0D! A«V!˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»K‡~1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular6hö001s02 ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ïÝ ƒRº$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€transcripts€from€any€hearings€or€other€proceedings€held€in€the€trial€court.ô\  `‹&Times New Roman #Ý ƒRº$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€Rule€23€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€ð ðsubstantially€mirrors€the€Federal€Rules€governingÐ ° Ðclass€actions[,]€.€.€.€we€draw€upon€[f]ederal€case€law€as€persuasive€authority€in€our€analysis.€€òòCarson€v.€DaimlerChryslerÐ qÁ ÐCorp.óó,€No.€W2001„03088„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€1618076,€at€*3€n.3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€19,€2003)€(òòno€perm.€app.Ð 2‚ Ðfiledóó). fÝ ƒRº$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBy€its€terms,€the€list€of€affirmative€defenses€set€forth€in€Rule€8.03€is€a€non„exclusive€list.€€AlthoughÐ ° Ðð ðcontractual€limitationsðð€is€not€expressly€listed,€the€affirmative€defense€of€statute€of€limitations€is€provided.€€OtherÐ qÁ Ðpotential€affirmative€defenses€not€listed€in€Rule€8.03€include€conditions€subsequent,€non„performance€of€conditionsÐ 2‚ Ðprecedent,€and€terms€of€the€agreement.€€3€Tenn.€Practice€ðð€8:6€(3d€ed.€2000). “Ý ƒRº$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€their€briefs€to€this€Court,€both€parties€discuss€in€great€detail€the€effect€of€Ms.€Beckwithððs€failure€to€file€aÐ ° Ðð ðProof€of€Lossðð€within€sixty€days€of€the€time€of€damage,€as€required€under€the€policy.€€Because€the€record€shows€thatÐ qÁ ÐMs.€Beckwithððs€claim€is€clearly€time„barred€for€failure€to€bring€this€action€within€the€contractual€limitations€period,€itÐ 2‚ Ðis€unnecessary€for€us€to€discuss€the€effect€of€Ms.€Beckwithððs€failure€to€file€a€ð ðProof€of€Loss.ðð 7Ý ƒRº$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSection€29„14„104€provides€that€ð ð[a]€contract€may€be€construed€either€before€or€after€there€has€been€a€breachÐ ° Ðthereof.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„14„104€(2000).  P.J. W.S.LedbetterPetreyT.R.C.P.fail[urew[oulddispose[dKendrickShoemakeMeighanComdataMcCarley CBLAssocs a]sWmf]ederal"DaimlerChrysler COACurtinSchweizer$precertificationEntman t]heOveisiarguendog]enerallyNeelyBeckwith S.W.Sundquistprotectable- ù-6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô(|G2º$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€—!»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº\ò»»Ô d(|3ÿ $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€—!»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€—!»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€—!»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼—!»»»Ôà@ò ò ìàÔ‡îh.—!ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼—!»îîh.È#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓOctober€12,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÖ—X»¼—!ÔÌò òÔ#†¼—!»XXÖ—¯#ÔSUSAN€SIMMONS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€STATE€FARM€GENERAL€INSURANCEÐ ï? ÐCOMPANY,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XÖ—X»¼—!Ôó óÐ  P ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CT„000617„03€€€€€€Robert€Childers,€JudgeÐ ä 4 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<·` AßÐ ¸  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02643„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€24,€2004Ð ±  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<„` AßÐ …Õ  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—ÔHomeownerððs€insurance€policyholders€filed€a€complaint€against€an€insurance€carrier€seeking€benefitsÐ }Í  Ðunder€policy€and€a€declaratory€judgment€that€policy€language€was€ambiguous.€€Homeowners€filedÐ f¶ Ða€motion€seeking€certification€as€a€class€action.€€The€insurance€carrier€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ OŸ Ðjudgment,€asserting€that€plaintiff€Beckwithððs€claim€for€benefits€was€time€barred€and€plaintiffÐ 8ˆ ÐSimmonsððs€claim€was€non„justiciable.€€The€insurance€carrier€filed€separate€motions€to€stay€discoveryÐ !q Ðand€defer€the€class€certification€hearing€until€after€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,Ð  Z Ðwhich€the€trial€court€granted.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€insurance€carrier€summary€judgmentÐ óC Ðagainst€all€plaintiffs,€thereby€disposing€of€the€class€certification€issue.€€Homeowners€appeal€fromÐ Ü, Ðthe€order€granting€summary€judgment.€€We€affirm.Ð Å ÐÔ#†XÖ—XXXkBp#ÔÔ#†¼—!»XXÖ—Z#ÔÔ‡XÖ—X»¼—!ÔÌÓdÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ €Ð ÐRemandedó óÐ jº ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼—!»àXÖ—Ö#ÔÔ‡XÖ—X.¼—!ÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ = Ðand€òòHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð & v ÐÌP.€Mark€Ledbetter,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Susan€Simmons€and€Corrine€Beckwith,Ð ø!H! Ðand€as€a€representative€of€a€Class€of€Homeownersðð€Policyholders€of€State€Farm€Fire€&€CasualtyÐ á"1" ÐCompany.Ð Ê## ÐÌGeorge€T.€Lewis,€III€and€Thomas€F.€Barnett,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Sate€FarmerÐ œ%ì % ÐGeneral€Insurance€Company,€Sate€Farm€Fire€&€Casualty€Company,€State€Farm€Mutual€AutomobileÐ …&Õ!& ÐInsurance€Company.Ð n'¾"' ÐÓ• ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼—!»XXÖ—Ä #ÔÐ Í-).ý ÐÓ  ÓÔ€XÖ—X»¼—!ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—Ôòòò òÌà@UUìàFacts€and€Procedural€BackgroundˆÐ ˜è ÐÌà  àó óóóPlaintiffs/Appellants€Susan€Simmons€(ð ðMs.€Simmonsðð)€and€Corrine€Beckwith€(ð ðMs.Ð h¸ ÐBeckwith,ðð€or,€collectively€with€Ms.€Simmons,€ð ðthe€Plaintiffsðð)€maintained€homeownerððs€insuranceÐ Q¡ Ðwith€Defendant/Appellee€State€Farm€Fire€and€Casualty€Company€(ð ðState€Farmðð)€under€State€FarmððsÐ : Š ÐForm€FP7955€KT€ð ðall€risksðð€homeownerððs€insurance€policy€(the€ð ðFP7955€KT€policyðð).€€TheÐ # s ÐPlaintiffs€allege€that€over€300,000€Tennessee€residents€are€insured€under€the€FP7955€KT€policy.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€early€September€2000,€Ms.€Beckwith€discovered€cracks€in€her€walls€and€ceilings,€as€wellÐ Þ .  Ðas€dampness€in€her€bedroom€carpet.€€Upon€further€investigation,€Ms.€Beckwith€discovered€that€theÐ Ç   Ðdamage€was€caused€by€a€leak€in€a€pressurized€water€pipe€inside€her€home.€€On€September€11,€2000,Ð °  ÐMs.€Beckwith€contacted€her€State€Farm€agent,€Chuck€Petrey,€who,€according€to€Ms.€BeckwithððsÐ ™é  Ðdeposition€testimony,€informed€her€that€her€insurance€policy€would€not€cover€the€type€of€loss€sheÐ ‚Ò  Ðsustained.€€Ms.€Beckwith€hired€a€structural€engineer€who€opined€that€the€leak€had€existed€for€aÐ k»  Ðsubstantial€period€of€time,€eroding€the€ground€beneath€her€home€and€causing€the€foundation€to€settle.€Ð T¤  ÐAt€her€own€expense,€Ms.€Beckwith€hired€servicemen€to€perform€remedial€work€on€the€foundationÐ = Ðand€complete€other€repairs€to€her€home.€€Ms.€Beckwith€did€not€contact€State€Farm€again€about€herÐ &v Ðclaim€until€March€2002,€some€eighteen€months€after€Ms.€Beckwith€discovered€the€damage.€€OnÐ _ ÐMarch€22,€2002,€after€inspecting€Ms.€Beckwithððs€home,€State€Farm€mailed€a€letter€to€Ms.€BeckwithÐ øH Ðinforming€her€that€her€policy€would€not€cover€the€type€of€loss€she€sustained.€€Ð á1 ÐÌà  àOn€September€9,€2002,€the€Plaintiffs€filed€their€Complaint€for€Declaratory€and€Other€relief,Ð ³ ÐRequest€for€Certification€as€a€Class€Action€and€a€Speedy€hearing€Under€Rule€57,€T.R.C.P.€€In€theÐ œì Ðcomplaint,€Ms.€Beckwith€sought€recovery€from€State€Farm€for€the€damage€to€her€home,€which€sheÐ …Õ Ðalleged€was€covered€under€the€FP7955€KT€policy.€€Ms.€Simmons€joined€in€this€action€to€serve€asÐ n¾ Ðclass€representative€and€sought€a€declaratory€judgment€construing€various€provisions€of€the€FP7955Ð W§ ÐKT€policy.€€Unlike€Ms.€Beckwith,€Ms.€Simmons€did€not€allege€any€loss.€€In€their€complaint,€theÐ @ ÐPlaintiffs€sought€a€declaratory€judgment€on€behalf€of€themselves€and€other€FP7955€KT€policyholdersÐ )y Ðthat€the€policy€language€State€Farm€relied€upon€in€denying€coverage€was€deceptive,€confusing,€andÐ b Ðambiguous€and,€therefore,€should€be€construed€against€State€Farm.€€Additionally,€in€their€complaint,Ð ûK Ðthe€plaintiffs€sought€certification€as€a€class€action€on€behalf€of€over€300,000€FP7955€KTÐ ä 4 Ðpolicyholders€in€Tennessee.€€Ð Í!  ÐÌà  àOn€September€25,€2002,€State€Farm€filed€an€Objection€to€Class€Certification,€asserting€thatÐ Ÿ#ï" Ðthis€action€was€not€an€appropriate€matter€for€class€certification€and€requesting€a€hearing.€€OnÐ ˆ$Ø# ÐSeptember€30,€2002,€State€Farm€filed€its€answer,€wherein€it€asserted€that€the€Plaintiffs€were€barredÐ q%Á $ Ðfrom€recovery€for€ð ðfail[ure]€to€comply€with€conditions€to€coverage€set€forth€in€the€policy.ðð€Ð Z&ª!% ÐContemporaneous€with€the€filing€of€its€answer,€State€Farm€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ C'“"& Ðasserting€that€the€FP7955€KT€policy€did€not€provide€coverage€for€the€individual€€plaintiffsðð€allegedÐ ,(|#' Ðlosses.€€In€support€of€its€motion€for€summary€judgment,€State€Farm€contended€that€Ms.€BeckwithððsÐ )e$( Ðclaim€was€contractually€time„barred€because€she€failed€to€initiate€this€lawsuit€within€one€year€fromÐ þ)N%) Ðâ âthe€date€of€loss,€as€required€under€the€limitations€provision€in€her€policy.€€With€regards€to€Ms.Ð ç*7&* ÐSimmonsððs€claim,€State€Farm€asserted€that€her€claim€for€declaratory€judgment€was€non„justiciableÐ ° Ðbecause€she€had€not€alleged€any€loss.€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àOn€November€7,€2002,€the€Plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€to€certify€this€case€as€a€class€action.€€SoonÐ k» Ðthereafter,€the€Plaintiffs€served€discovery€requests€upon€State€Farm€in€the€form€of€interrogatories,Ð T¤ Ðrequests€for€admissions,€and€requests€for€production€of€documents.€€On€December€16,€2002,€StateÐ =  ÐFarm€provided€responses€to€the€Plaintiffððs€discovery€requests.€€In€its€discovery€responses,€State€FarmÐ & v Ðobjected€to€many€of€the€Plaintiffððs€requests,€asserting€that€the€discovery€requests€were€exceedinglyÐ  _ Ðbroad,€unduly€burdensome,€and€were€relevant€only€to€issues€related€to€class€certification.€Ð ø H ÐMeanwhile,€State€Farm€filed€a€motion€to€defer€the€hearing€on€the€Plaintiffsðð€class€certificationÐ á 1  Ðmotion€until€after€the€hearing€on€State€Farmððs€summary€judgment€motion.€€After€a€hearing׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€StateÐ Ê   ÐFarmððs€motion€to€defer,€the€trial€court€granted€State€Farmððs€motion€and€deferred€the€PlaintiffððsÐ ³  Ðmotion€for€class€certification€until€after€a€hearing€on€State€Farmððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð œì  ÐOn€January€6,€2003,€the€Plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€to€compel€State€Farm€to€provide€more€completeÐ …Õ  Ðanswers€to€the€Plaintiffsðð€previous€discovery€requests.€€The€trial€court,€however,€issued€an€orderÐ n¾  Ðstaying€discovery€until€resolution€of€State€Farmððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€finding€that€theÐ W§  ÐPlaintiffsðð€requested€discovery€ð ðw[ould]€have€little,€if€any,€bearing€upon€the€issues€raised€in€[StateÐ @ ÐFarmððs€motion€for€summary€judgment].ðð€€Ð )y ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€State€Farm€summary€judgment,€finding€that€Ms.€Beckwithððs€claimÐ ûK Ðwas€time„barred€and€Ms.€Simmons€claim€was€non„justiciable.€€In€its€order,€the€trial€court€stated€thatÐ ä4 Ðð ð[summary€judgment€was]€granted€as€to€all€Plaintiffs€and€all€claims.ðð€€Thus,€the€trial€court€dismissedÐ Í Ðthe€entire€case€with€prejudice€because€the€summary€judgment€ruling€ð ðdispose[d]€of€all€the€issues€inÐ ¶ Ðthe€case.ððÐ Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffs€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€and€haveÐ qÁ Ðpresented€the€following€issues,€as€we€perceive€them,€for€our€review:Ð Zª ÐÌÓ PûÓÓ$` °Ü¸ ™X°œX$Óà8  à(1)à0` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€prior€to€a€rulingÐ ,| Ðon€class€certification;Ðe` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)à0` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€staying€discovery€until€the€hearing€on€theÐ ç 7 Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment;€andÐÐ!  ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)à0` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€State€Farm€onÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€grounds€that€Ms.€Beckwithððs€claim€was€time„barred€and€Ms.€SimmonsÐ ‹$Û# Ðhad€not€alleged€any€loss,€thereby€rendering€her€claim€non„justiciable.Ðt%Ä $` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓStandard€of€ReviewÐ )h$( Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àA€trial€courtððs€conclusions€on€issues€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€ofÐ ™é Ðcorrectness.€€òòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,€90€S.W.3d€566,€569€(Tenn.€2002).€€We€review€a€trial€courtððsÐ ‚Ò Ðdecision€on€a€motion€for€class€certification€under€Rule€23€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€Ð k» ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€23€(2004).€€In€general,€trial€courts€have€broad€discretion€in€determining€whether€aÐ T¤ Ðmatter€should€proceed€as€a€class€action.€€òòMeighan€v.€U.S.€Sprint€Communications€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2dÐ =  Ð632,€637€(Tenn.€1996).€€With€regard€to€a€trial€courtððs€decisions€regarding€discovery€issues,€this€CourtÐ & v Ðmust€review€those€decisions€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€review.€€òòBoyd€v.€ComdataÐ  _ ÐNetwork,€Inc.óó,€88€S.W.3d€203,€211€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).Ð ø H ÐÌà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€the€moving€party€can€demonstrate€that€thereÐ Ê   Ðare€no€disputed€issues€of€material€fact,€and€that€it€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.Ð ³  ÐR.€Civ.€P.€56.04€(2004);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).òòóó€€The€party€moving€forÐ œì  Ðsummary€judgment€must€affirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€nonmoving€party's€claimÐ …Õ  Ðor€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòMcCarley€v.€W.€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960€S.W.2dÐ n¾  Ð585,€588€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ô#†XÖ—XXXkB5 #ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—ÔWhen€a€party€makes€a€properly€supported€motion€for€summary€judgment,Ð W§  Ðthe€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€establish€the€existence€of€disputed€material€facts.€Ô#†XÖ—XXXkBö2#ÔòòÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—Ô€Id.Ô#†XÖ—XXXkBô3#ÔóóÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—Ô€Ô#†XÖ—XXXkB=4#ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—ÔÐ @ ÐIn€determining€whether€to€award€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€must€Ô#†XÖ—XXXkB€4#ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—Ôview€the€evidence€in€theÐ )y Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€that€party's€favorÔ#†XÖ—XXXkB5#ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—Ô.€Ð b ÐòòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assocs.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).€€òòóóÔ#†XÖ—XXXkBñ5#ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—ÔThe€court€should€award€summaryÐ ûK Ðjudgment€only€when€a€reasonable€person€could€reach€but€one€conclusion€based€on€the€facts€and€theÐ ä4 Ðinferences€drawn€from€those€facts.€€Ô#†XÖ—XXXkB6#ÔòòÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—ÔId.Ô#†XÖ—XXXkB¡7#ÔóóÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—Ô€€Ô#†XÖ—XXXkBé7#ÔÔ‡XkBXXXÖ—ÔWe€review€an€award€of€summary€judgment€òòde€novoóó€with€noÐ Í Ðpresumption€of€correctness€afforded€to€the€trial€court.€€òòGuy€v.€Mut.€of€Omaha€Ins.€Co.óó,€79€S.W.3dÐ ¶ Ð528,€534€(Tenn.€2002).òòÐ Ÿï ÐÌòòò òóóÓ  Ó(1)€€Timing€of€Class€Certification€DecisionÐ qÁ Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àTurning€to€the€first€issue€raised€on€appeal,€the€Plaintiffs€argue€that€it€was€error€for€the€trialÐ B’ Ðcourt€to€grant€summary€judgment€prior€to€a€ò òòòòòó óóóóóruling€on€class€certification.€€In€this€case,€the€PlaintiffsÐ +{ Ðsought€class€certification€in€the€complaint€itself€and€by€a€subsequently€filed€motion€for€classÐ d Ðcertification.€€The€trial€court,€however,€deferred€the€class€certification€ruling€until€after€a€hearing€onÐ ýM ÐState€Farmððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€court€granted€State€Farm€summary€judgmentÐ æ 6 Ðagainst€the€individual€plaintiffsðð€claims,€thereby€rendering€the€class€certification€issue€moot.€€Ð Ï!  ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffs€contend€that,€by€granting€State€Farm€summary€judgment€against€the€named,Ð ¡#ñ" Ðindividual€plaintiffs€and,€thus,€ð ðmootingðð€the€class€action,€the€trial€court€violated€the€spirit€of€RuleÐ Š$Ú# Ð23.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Rule€23.03€provides,€in€relevant€part,€ð ð[a]s€soonÐ s%à $ Ðas€practicable€after€the€commencement€of€an€action€brought€as€a€class€action,€.€.€.€the€court€shallÐ \&¬!% Ðdetermine€by€order€whether€the€action€is€to€be€so€maintained.€€An€order€under€this€section€may€beÐ E'•"& Ðconditional€and€may€be€altered€or€amended€before€the€decision€on€the€merits.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð .(~#' Ð23.03(1).€€The€Plaintiffs€cite€Rule€23.03€for€the€proposition€that€a€class€certification€determinationÐ )g$( Ðmust€always€be€considered€prior€to€a€merits€adjudication€or€hearing€on€a€dispositive€motion.€€Ð *P%) Ðâ âÐ é*9&* Ðà  àUnder€Rule€23.03(1),€the€trial€court€must€determine€class€certification€ð ðat€an€early€practicableÐ ° Ðâ âtime.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P€23.03(1).€€This€indefinite€language€prescribing€the€timing€of€certificationÐ ™é Ðdecisions€is€purposefully€imprecise€because€it€is€intended€to€provide€the€courts€latitude€in€makingÐ ‚Ò Ðclass€certification€determinations.€€5€James€Wm.€Moore€et€al.,€Mooreððs€Federal€Practice€ðð€23.81[1]Ð k» Ð(3d€ed.€2004).€€In€general,€federal€courts׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€allow€rulings€on€dispositive€motions€prior€to€a€classÐ T¤ Ðcertification€determination.€€òòMiami€Univ.€Wrestling€Club€v.€Miami€Univ.óó,€302€F.3d€608,€616€(6thòòóó€Cir.Ð =  Ð2002)€(ð ðWe€have€consistently€held€that€a€district€court€is€not€required€to€rule€on€a€motion€for€classÐ & v Ðcertification€before€ruling€on€the€merits€of€the€case.ðð);€òòCurtin€v.€United€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€275€F.3d€88,Ð  _ Ð92€(D.C.€Cir.€2001)€(holding€that€where€the€merits€of€a€partyððs€claim€can€be€disposed€of€by€summaryÐ ø H Ðjudgment,€the€timing€of€the€disposition€of€motions€for€class€certification€and€summary€judgment€isÐ á 1  Ðwithin€the€discretion€of€the€court);€òòaccord€Schweizer€v.€Trans€Union€Corp.óó,€136€F.3d€233,€239€(2dÐ Ê   ÐCir.€1998);€òòWade€v.€Kirklandóó,€118€F.3d€667,€670€(9thòòóó€Cir.€1997);€òòFloyd€v.€Bowenóó,€833€F.2d€529,Ð ³  Ð534ð!ð35€(5thòòóó€Cir.€1987).€€Other€authorities€likewise€agree€that,€under€appropriate€circumstances,Ð œì  Ðð ðprecertification€rulings€on€threshold€dispositive€motions€are€proper.ðð€€Manual€for€ComplexÐ …Õ  ÐLitigation€(Fourth)€ðð21.133€(2004)€(ð ðThe€court€may€rule€on€motions€pursuant€to€Rule€12,€Rule€56,Ð n¾  Ðor€other€threshold€issues€before€deciding€on€certification;€however,€such€rulings€bind€only€the€namedÐ W§  Ðparties.ðð);€òòsee€alsoóó€Robert€Banks€Jr.€&€June€F.€Entman,€Tennessee€Civil€Procedure€ðð€6„10(q)€(2d€ed.Ð @ Ð2004)€(ð ðThe€[class€certification]€decision€may€be€delayed€pending€determination€of€a€defendantððsÐ )y Ðmotion€challenging€the€plaintiffððs€individual€claim,€which,€if€granted,€may€render€the€classÐ b Ðcertification€issue€moot.ðð).€€Relying€on€the€foregoing€authorities,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€didÐ ûK Ðnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€deferring€the€class€certification€decision€until€after€a€hearing€on€StateÐ ä4 ÐFarmððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ð Í ÐÌÓ  Óòòò ò(2)€€Order€Staying€Discovery€Until€After€Hearing€on€Motion€for€Summary€Judgmentó óóóÐ Ÿï ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAs€an€outgrowth€to€their€first€issue,€the€Plaintiffs€claim€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€by€issuing€an€order€staying€further€discovery€until€after€the€hearing€on€State€FarmððsÐ Y© Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€In€their€brief€to€this€Court€and€at€oral€argument,€the€Plaintiffs€failedÐ B’ Ðto€illustrate€how€the€requested€discovery€would€assist€them€in€responding€to€State€Farmððs€motionÐ +{ Ðfor€summary€judgment.€€Moreover,€the€Plaintiffs€asserted€in€their€brief€to€this€Court€that€theÐ d Ðrequested€discovery€was€ð ðin€aid€of€the€declaratory€judgment€and€property€damage€aspects€of€theÐ ýM Ðcase,€including€discovery€of€the€author€of€the€FP7955€policy[,]€prior€litigation€involving€StateÐ æ 6 ÐFarm[,]€and€this€form€policy.ðð€€In€its€order€staying€discovery,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€discoveryÐ Ï!  Ðrequested€by€the€plaintiffs€would€have€ð ðlittle,€if€any,€bearing€upon€the€issues€raised€in€[State€FarmððsÐ ¸"! Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment].ðð€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€it€appears€that€the€PlaintiffsððÐ ¡#ñ" Ðrequested€discovery€related€solely€to€issues€relevant€only€to€the€declaratory€judgment€class€action.€Ð Š$Ú# ÐTherefore,€because€the€requested€class„based€discovery€would€not€have€aided€the€Plaintiffs€in€theirÐ s%à $ Ðâ âopposition€to€the€summary€judgment€motion,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€itsÐ \&¬!% Ðdiscretion€in€staying€discovery€pending€the€resolution€of€State€Farmððs€motion€for€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌÓ  Óòòò ò(3)€€Summary€Judgmentó óóóÐ k» ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àFinally,€the€Plaintiffs€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment.€€TheÐ < Œ ÐPlaintiffs€contend€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€whether€State€Farm€waived€orÐ % u Ðshould€be€estopped€from€asserting€the€defense€that€Ms.€Beckwithððs€claim€was€contractually€time„Ð  ^ Ðbarred.€€In€support€of€their€waiver€argument,€the€Plaintiffs€assert€that€the€contractual€limitationsÐ ÷ G Ðprovision€is€an€affirmative€defense€that,€under€Rules€8.03€and€12.08€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ à 0  ÐProcedure,€must€be€raised€in€its€answer€or€deemed€to€be€waived.€€The€Plaintiffs€argue€that€StateÐ É   ÐFarm€failed€to€adequately€plead€this€defense€because,€instead€of€specifically€pleading€that€Ms.Ð ²  ÐBeckwith€was€barred€for€failure€to€bring€her€claim€within€one€year€from€the€date€of€loss,€State€FarmÐ ›ë  Ðpled€that€Ms.€Beckwith€failed€to€comply€with€conditions€to€coverage,€as€set€forth€in€the€policy.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€its€answer,€State€Farm€raised€the€following€defense:Ð V¦  ÐÌà8  àBased€upon€the€allegations€of€the€Complaint,€one€or€more€of€the€Plaintiffs€failed€toÐ (x Ðcomply€with€conditions€to€coverage€set€forth€in€the€policy€which€is€incorporated€inÐ a Ðthe€Complaint.€€Defendants€reserve,€therefore,€the€right€to€argue€that€PlaintiffsððÐ úJ Ðfailure€to€comply€with€policy€requirements,€voids€any€coverage€which€may€haveÐ ã3 Ðotherwise€existed,€although€Defendants€vigorously€dispute€that€any€coverage€exists.ÐÌÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€contractual€limitations€provision€is€provided€under€the€section€of€the€policy€titled€ð ðConditions,ððÐ žî Ðwherein€it€states€that€ð ð[t]he€[suit€against€State€Farm]€must€be€started€within€one€year€after€the€dateÐ ‡× Ðof€loss€or€damage.ðð€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Plaintiffs€argue€that,€by€pleading€conditions€to€policy€coverage€in€broad,€general€terms,Ð B’ ÐState€Farm€failed€to€adequately€raise€the€affirmative€defense€of€the€one€year€contractual€limitationsÐ +{ Ðprovision.€€Rule€8.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€states€that€ð ða€party€shall€set€forthÐ d Ðaffirmatively€facts€in€short€and€plain€terms€relied€upon€to€constitute€.€.€.€an€avoidance€or€affirmativeÐ ýM Ðdefense.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€We€are€mindful€of€the€general€rule€that€an€affirmative€defenseÐ æ 6 Ðmust€be€pled€in€the€first€responsive€pleading€or€it€is€waived.€€òòSteed€Realty€v.€Oveisióó,€823€S.W.2d€195,Ð Ï!  Ð197€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€However,€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€State€Farm€failed€to€specificallyÐ ¸"! Ðplead€the€one€year€contractual€limitations€provision€in€its€answer,€it€does€not€necessarily€follow€thatÐ ¡#ñ" Ðthe€defense€is€waived.€€In€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297,€299€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ Š$Ú# ÐCourt€stated€that€ð ðit€is€well€settled€that€failure€to€[specifically€plead€a€statute€of€limitations€defense]Ð s%à $ Ðdoes€not€result€in€a€waiver€of€the€defense€if€the€opposing€party€is€given€fair€notice€of€the€defense€andÐ \&¬!% Ðan€opportunity€to€rebut€it.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Here,€even€if€the€Plaintiffs€were€not€put€on€notice€by€State€FarmððsÐ E'•"& Ðanswer,€State€Farmððs€memorandum€in€support€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment,€filed€onÐ ° ÐDecember€26,€2002,€clearly€provided€fair€notice€to€the€Plaintiffs€of€State€Farmððs€intention€to€assertÐ ™é Ðthe€contractual€limitations€provision.€€Considering€that€the€summary€judgment€hearing€was€held€JulyÐ ‚Ò Ð25,€2003,€the€Plaintiffs€had€sufficient€opportunity€to€prepare€for€State€Farmððs€defense.€€Moreover,Ð k» Ðin€òòCreed€v.€Valentineóó,€967€S.W.2d€325,€327€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€this€Court€noted€thatÐ T¤ Ðð ððð[g]enerally€speaking,€a€defendant€moving€for€summary€judgment€may€avail€itself€of€one€of€twoÐ =  Ðavenues:€it€may€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€nonmoving€partyððs€claim,€or€it€may€establish€anÐ & v Ðaffirmative€defense,€such€as€the€statute€of€limitations,€that€defeats€the€claim.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòAlliedÐ  _ ÐSound,€Incóó.òò€v.€Neelyóó,€909€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)).òò€€óóTherefore,€we€find€Ms.€BeckwithððsÐ ø H Ðwaiver€argument€without€merit.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àConcluding€that€State€Farmððs€affirmative€defense€was€properly€raised,€we€turn€to€the€issueÐ ³  Ðof€whether€the€trial€court€properly€granted€State€Farm€summary€judgment€as€to€Ms.€BeckwithððsÐ œì  Ðindividual€claim.€€In€her€deposition€testimony€and€in€State€Farmððs€statement€of€undisputed€facts,€Ms.Ð …Õ  ÐBeckwith€concedes€that,€on€September€11,€2000ò òòòó óóó,€she€knew€that€State€Farm€was€denying€coverageÐ n¾  Ðfor€the€damage€to€her€home.€ò ò€ó óMs.€Beckwith€filed€her€complaint€against€State€Farm€on€September€9,Ð W§  Ð2002,€nearly€two€years€later.€€Therefore,€it€is€irrefutable€that€Ms.€Beckwithððs€claim€was€no€longerÐ C“ Ðviable€because€she€failed€to€bring€this€action€within€one€year€from€the€date€of€loss.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€we€affirmÐ ,| Ðthe€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€as€to€Ms.€Beckwithððs€claim.òòÐ e ÐÌà  àóóWith€regard€to€Ms.€Simmonsððs€prayer€for€declaratory€judgment,€the€trial€court€grantedÐ ç7 Ðsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€State€Farm€because€Ms.€Simmons€had€alleged€no€loss,€and,€therefore,Ð Ð  Ðher€claim€was€non„justiciable.€€The€Plaintiffs€argue€that€a€declaratory€judgment€action€is€theÐ ¹  Ðappropriate€device€for€determining€Ms.€Simmonsððs€and€all€other€FP7955€KT€policyholdersððÐ ¢ò Ðcontractual€rights,€despite€the€fact€that€none€has€alleged€any€loss€or€claimed€to€have€been€deniedÐ ‹Û Ðrights€based€on€the€policy€exclusions.€€The€Plaintiffs€further€argue€that€section€29„14„104€of€theÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Code€expressly€authorizes€the€courts€to€construe€contract€rights€prior€to€a€breach׃”×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€thatÐ ]­ ÐTennesseeððs€rules€governing€class€actions€contemplate€declaratory€relief€as€proper.€€Ð F– ÐÌà  àOn€its€face,€section€29„14„104€allows€courts€to€construe€contracts€ð ðeither€before€or€after€thereÐ h Ðhas€been€a€breach.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„14„104.€€However,€courts€have€consistently€interpretedÐ  Q Ðthe€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€to€extend€only€to€present,€actual,€and€non„theoretical€controversies.€Ð ê : ÐòòMiller€v.€Milleróó,€261€S.W.€965,€966ð!ð72€(Tenn.€1924);€òòCampbell€v.€Sundquistóó,€926€S.W.2d€250,Ð Ó!#  Ð256ð!ð57€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€2000,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€restated€the€limits€on€the€roleÐ ¼" ! Ðâ âof€the€declaratory€judgment€as€follows:Ð ¥#õ" Ðòòòòóóóóà8  à[A]€declaratory€judgment€action€cannot€be€used€by€a€court€to€decide€a€theoreticalÐ ° Ðâ âquestion,€render€an€advisory€opinion€which€may€help€a€party€in€another€transaction,Ð ™é Ðor€ð ðallay€fears€as€to€what€may€occur€in€the€future[.]ðð€òòSuper€Flea€Mkt.€of€ChattanoogaÐ ‚Ò Ðv.€Olsenóó,€677€€S.W.2d€449,€451€(Tenn.€1984).€€Thus,€in€order€to€maintain€an€actionÐ k» Ðfor€a€declaratory€judgment€a€justiciable€controversy€must€exist.€€For€a€controversyÐ T¤ Ðto€be€justiciable,€a€real€question€rather€than€a€theoretical€one€must€be€presented€andÐ =  Ða€legally€protectable€interest€must€be€at€stake.€€If€the€controversy€depends€upon€aÐ & v Ðfuture€or€contingent€event,€or€involves€a€theoretical€or€hypothetical€state€of€facts,€theÐ  _ Ðcontroversy€is€not€justiciable.€€If€the€rule€were€otherwise,€the€ð ðcourts€might€well€beÐ ø H Ðprojected€into€the€limitless€field€of€advisory€opinions.ðð€€òòStory€v.€Walkeróó,€404€S.W.2dÐ á 1  Ð803,€804€(Tenn.€1966).ÐÊ  Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓòòState€v.€Brown€&€Williamson€Tobacco€Corp.óó,€18€S.W.3d€186,€193€(Tenn.òòòòóóóó€2000)€(citationsÐ œì  Ðomitted).òòÐ …Õ  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àóóIn€this€case,€by€way€of€declaratory€judgment,€Ms.€Simmons€and€the€other€prospective€classÐ W§  Ðplaintiffs€essentially€are€asking€this€Court€to€determine€whether€the€FP7955€KT€policy€wouldÐ @ Ðprovide€coverage€should€her€home€be€damaged€in€the€future.€€She€admittedly€has€never€suffered€anyÐ )y Ðdamage€to€her€home€and€has€never€filed€a€claim€with€State€Farm.€€It€is€beyond€this€Courtððs€powerÐ b Ðto€declare,€based€on€a€hypothetical€statement€of€facts,€whether€the€insurance€policy€at€issue€wouldÐ ûK Ðprovide€coverage€in€the€event€the€Plaintiffs€ever€suffer€damage€to€their€home.€€To€do€so€wouldÐ ä4 Ðamount€to€this€court€issuing€an€advisory€opinion.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€the€trial€courtÐ Í Ðappropriately€granted€summary€judgment€to€State€Farm€as€the€Plaintiffsðð€claim€for€declaratoryÐ ¶ Ðjudgment€was€non„justiciable.Ð Ÿï ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓConclusionÐ qÁ Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ B’ Ðstaying€discovery€and€deferring€the€class€certification€determination€until€after€ruling€on€the€motionÐ +{ Ðfor€summary€judgment.€€We€conclude€also€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summary€judgmentÐ d Ðto€State€Farm€was€proper.€€Because€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€court€appropriately€grantedÐ ýM Ðsummary€judgment,€we€need€not€interpret€the€language€of€the€policy€exclusions.€€Accordingly,€theÐ æ 6 Ðorder€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€Appellants,€SusanÐ Ï!  ÐSimmons€and€Corrine€Beckwith,€and€their€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†XÖ—XXXkB-8#ÔÐ ¸"! ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \&¬!% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE