WPC' }*=LUU5izթuJn_F Q Q᰾cC^>Ӱ*thx@ Pw2+]g G^@+k7D %kkUxmU2!XH:쪇ɕfWM+h^ k!y Oاh|? $VOv,ѫv'hz+#8e刬H/R2URf4L`s \$> *䇆32%\n_4C燡^J]X8nMp=K֕vP8X9.!#cp7q &PV7ѳ0$ɕ-2A=X5 ߊos@]N{Jh=|\tTFϚ33A] Ӎ>s'/jmˌltVp}Y2?WF #D'b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   m 3  0 cN" 1$ 1E2 14UN 1  1u 727 0D.,U@Zb"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0"""" B## 0# D3J$ D-}$ 0K$$ AS$H% 0& 0D& A&FsX+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+:i+003|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.wpt UHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0   сLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0f(CEKQW]cioAutoList41.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList5a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)  R"$      1     _ThereisaninterplayintheLeespolicybetweenthesetwophrases.Underthedefinitionsectionofthepolicy,  thephrase residentofyourhouseholdisimportantbecauseitisacomponentofthedefinitionof familymember t whichinturnisapartofthedefinitionof coveredpersonundertheliabilitycoverageofthepolicy.Furthermore,a 8 claimbya coveredpersonoraclaimbyanindividual residinginthesamehouseholdisnotcoveredunderthe L liabilityfeatureoftheLeespolicy.SincetheinjuredpartyinthiscaseisrelatedtotheLees!toonebybloodandto  theotherbymarriage!thecriticaldeterminationinthiscaseistheconceptembodiedin residentofyourhousehold  and residinginthesamehousehold.Asindicatedinthebodyofouropinion,wefindthesephrasestobedifferentways H  ofsayingthesamething.(#$  0   $ R"$      2     _Thetrialcourtwasreferringtothecaseof McDonoughv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Company ,755S.W.2d  57(Tenn.Ct.App.1988). McDonough dealswithapolicyprovisionaffordingcoveragetoone wholiveswithyou. v  Id .at58.Thatcasefoundthat thenearestequivalentofthewordslivingwithwouldberesidingwithorhaving < residencewith. Id .at67.TheCourtofAppealsin McDonough thenstatedthat [_s]uch_Ԁwordsarenotofpreciselegal R definition. Id .Wefindthetrialcourtintheinstantcaseerredinrelyingon McDonough ,whichdealswithamuch  narrowerconceptthantheoneembodiedinthelanguage, residinginthesamehousehold,anditscompanionlanguage,  inthesubjectpolicy.Wefindthattheinstantcaseiscontrolledby _Gredig_Ԁv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co .,891 R  S.W.2d909(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).(9 Z(Times New Roman   R"$      3     _Mr.Leestestimonyisthesourceoftheinformationregardingtheinjuredpartysplanswithrespecttohertime  awayfromKorea.Thereisanotarizedstatementintherecordthatwaspurportedlysignedbytheinjuredparty.It t reflectsthefollowing: 8   8 ` PurposeofVisiting_U.S.A_:(1)SightSeeing(visitingrelatives)` x` x   8 ` (Duration:oneyear)(2)Babysitting(contractfor6month` x` x    `     h [sic]$700x6=4,200) H  TheinsurancecompanysadjustertestifiedthatMrs.Lee broughtthestatement...tome.Thecompanypointsoutthat   thestatementreflectsthattheinjuredpartywastobeintheUnitedStatesfor oneyear.Whilethestatementisin    English,thesignatureonthestatementisnot.Presumably,itisinKorean.Itshouldalsobenotedthattheinjuredparty X   doesnotspeakEnglish.Evenassumingthattheinjuredpartyknowinglyadoptedthisstatementasherown,wedonot  l  findthetimeframesexpressedinthestatement,eveniftrue,tobecontrarytoourholdinginthiscase.- -(|G2"$ !.8d d 8         0  a8 d(|3E$ !.8d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3E$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 d d8     _  28jXXdd 8   Oa@ ,+2INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#2,+#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust28,2001 L XnvX2 #2XXnv#TENNESSEEFARMERSMUTUALINSURANCECOMPANYv.SAW. J JEONG,etal.XnvX2   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforBradleyCounty  ^ @@No.V99510LawrenceH.Puckett,Judge  J FILEDOCTOBER23,2001 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200100246COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      TennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCompany( TennesseeFarmers)broughtadeclaratory  judgmentactionagainstSaW.Jeong( theinjuredparty);herdaughter,HyunlanLee;andherson x inlaw,JackSungK.Lee(thedefendantsLeearereferredtohereincollectivelyas theLees), d askingthetrialcourtto declarewhetherornotTennesseeFarmersisobligatedtoaffordliability P coverageto[theLees]inconnectionwiththelawsuitfiledagainstthemby[theinjuredparty].At < theconclusionofabenchtrial,thetrialjudgeruledinfavorofthedefendants,findingthattheword (x  resideanditsderivatives residentand residing,particularlyasthelattertwowordsareused d inthepolicylanguageexcludingcoverageofaclaimbya coveredpersonorone residinginthe P samehousehold,areambiguous,andthatthelanguageofthepolicyshouldbeconstruedagainst < TennesseeFarmersasthedrafterofthepolicy.ThecourtorderedTennesseeFarmerstoprovide ( liabilitycoveragetotheLeeswithrespecttothesubjectlawsuit.TennesseeFarmersappeals,raising  issuesastowhetherthetrialcourtcorrectlyruledthatthepolicyisambiguous,andwhetherthetrial  courtwascorrectinfindingthattheword residentwassusceptibletoareasonablemeaningthat  wouldexcludetheinjuredpartyfromtheambitofthesubjectexclusionarylanguageinthepolicy.  Wefindthatthesubjectpolicyprovisionisnotambiguous;however,weconcludethattheinjured t  partywasnot residingin[theLees]householdasthatlanguagehasbeenconstruedbyapplicable `!  caselaw.Accordingly,weaffirm. L"!  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt $$t# Affirmed;CaseRemanded  %` $   CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,#2Xnv#XnvX.2deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard, &8"& P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined. '$#' MichaelE.Callaway,Cleveland,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TennesseeFarmersMutualInsurance )$) Company. *%* JimmyW.Bilbo,Cleveland,Tennessee,fortheappellees,SaW.Jeong,JackSungK.Lee,and p,', HyunlanLee. \-(-  Oa      m  OPINION #2XXnv #XnvX2  I. t #2XXnv'#XnvX2    OnJune5,1998,theinjuredpartywasapassengerinherdaughtersvehicle.Shewas L  injuredwhenherdaughterlostcontrolofhervehicleandhitatelephonepole.Atthetimeofthe 8  accident,theLeeswereinsuredunderanautomobileliabilitypolicyissuedbyTennesseeFarmers. $ t Followingtheaccident,theinjuredpartymadeaclaimagainsttheLeesformedicalexpenses,and  ` aseparateclaimforbodilyinjuryundertheliabilityfeatureoftheLeespolicy.TennesseeFarmers  L  paidtheinjuredpartysmedicalexpensesunderthemedicalpaymentssectionofthepolicy,but  8  refusedtopayherfordamagesundertheLeesliabilitycoverage,assertingthattheinjuredpartywas $  aresidentoftheLeeshousehold.TheinjuredpartythensuedtheLeesintheBradleyCounty   GeneralSessionsCourttorecoverforherinjuries.OnJune15,1999,TennesseeFarmersfileda   declaratoryjudgmentactionagainsttheirinsuredsandtheinjuredparty,maintainingthatitdidnot   provideliabilitycoveragetotheLeesfortheclaimassertedagainstthembytheinjuredparty   because,underthetheoryofTennesseeFarmers,theinjuredpartywasaresidentoftheLees p householdatthetimeoftheaccident,and,accordingtothetermsofthepolicy,TennesseeFarmers \ doesnotprovideliabilitycoverageforbodilyinjurytoaresidentoftheLeeshousehold. H   Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelowconcludedthatthesubjectliabilityinsurancepolicy  p providescoveragetotheLeesforthepersonalinjuryactionfiledbytheinjuredparty.Tennessee  \ Farmersappeals.Itraisestwoissuesonappeal.First,thecompanyquestionsthetrialcourtsruling H thattheinsurancepolicyisambiguous.Second,theinsurancecompanycontendsthattheinjured 4 partywasa residentof[theLees]householdand,asaconsequenceofthisfact,anactionbyher   againsttheLeesisexcludedfromtheliabilitycoverageofthepolicy.   @)II.    Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecord,withapresumptionof l correctnessastothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderates X  otherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); D!  UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusions 0"  oflaw,however,areaccordednosuchpresumption. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d #l! 26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).   $X"   Theinterpretationofawrittencontractisaquestionoflawforthecourt. RealtyShop,Inc. %0!$ v.RRWestminsterHolding,Inc. ,7S.W.3d581,597(Tenn.Ct.App.1999),perm.app.denied &"% October25,1999.#2XXnv#XnvX2 '#& #2XXnvr#XnvX2@vv(III. )$(    `     h       ThefollowinglanguageoftheLeesinsurancepolicyisrelevanttotheissuesbeforeus: h+&* Ї  8 ` WhatisNotCovered` x` x   8 ` We donotprovideliabilitycoverageunderthisPartAandB:`` x` x @%*** <   (Uh83! !"3 "    8 ` 3!2Uh  12  .3  0 ` x` x  foranypersonorentityforbodilyinjuryorpropertydamage  d toanycoveredpersonoranypersonresidinginthesame  P  household;3!!݌ <  x x Ќ  @%***   @//$ PARTAANDB   @!LIABILITYCOVERAGE   @%*** `   8 ` DefinitionsofwordsandtermsasusedinthisPartAandB 8` x` x ! ! (f(08  "3"    8 ` 3'%2f(  1  .3  0 ` x` x  Coveredperson means:3'%l%݌` x x Ќ  ! ! (uh80"3"    8 `  3&2uh  a  .3  0` x` x  you orany familymember forthemaintenanceor < useofany auto or trailer; 3&"'݌,xx Ќ  @%***  @WW% DEFINITIONS    8 ` Thewordsandtermsdefinedbelowareusedthroughoutthispolicy h  astheyaredefinedhere.T!` x` x @%*** ,#|!   8 ` Familymember meansapersonwhoisaresidentof your household %T # andwhoiseither:%D!$` x` x ! ! (h88"3"    8 ` 3*2h  1  .3  0 ` x` x  relatedto you byblood,marriageoradoption;...#2XXnv#XnvX23*%+݌'#& x x Ќ  #2XXnv+#@*XnvX2(BoldandCapitalizationinOriginal).Basedontheseprovisions,TennesseeFarmersliability )%( coverageextendstotheLeesandany residentoftheir householdwhoisalsorelatedby blood, * &) marriage,oradoption.Apersonwhofitsthelatterdefinitionisa coveredpersonwhoseliability +&* isinsuredunderthepolicy;butaclaimbysuchapersonisexcludedfromcoverageundertheabove  referencedexclusionaryprovisionofthepolicy.    Becausethephrases residentofyourhouseholdand residinginthesamehousehold #  1      ׀are t notdefinedinthepolicy,wemustdeterminethemeaningofwhatisessentiallythesameconcept. ` Iftheinjuredpartyisfoundtohavebeen residingin[theLees]household,thereisnoliability L  coveragerunningtotheLeesforthepersonalinjuryclaimassertedinthesubjectlawsuit. 8  @ll)IV.  `   InrulinginfavoroftheLees,thetrialcourt,attheconclusionofthetrial,statedthe  8  following: $    8 ` Youknow,I!IthinkIknowwhat residemeans.Ithinkitmeans   tolivewithsomebody.ThatswhatIwouldsaytheordinarymeaning   of resideis,isto!istobelivinginthehousehold.Thislanguage   saysinthepolicythat anypersonresidinginthehousehold.Butit p isanexclusion.\` x` x @%*** 4   8 ` Youknow,Idontthinkitsambiguousinmymind;but,whenIread  \ thiscase,itlooksambiguoustome,totheCourt,thislanguagein H McDonough, #  2      ׀ifitcanmeantodwellpermanentlyforalengthof 4 time,todwellpermanentlyforaconsiderabletime,todwell   permanentlyforanylengthoftime. ` x` x @%***  Ї  8 ` Sowhereas,IbelieveIunderstandthat,what residingmeans,I  wouldntthinkitwouldbeambiguous;butifthecourtsaysallthese  meaningscanattachtoit,thenitisambiguous,andithastobe  construedagainstthedrafterifitsambiguous.t` x` x   8 ` Imgoingto!Ibelieve,becauseIbelieveitsambiguous,Ihaveto L  findthattherescoverage.Icantapplythisagainsttheinsured.I 8  havetoapplyitagainstthepersonwhowrotethepolicy....$ t` x` x @)V.  L    In Tatav.Nichols ,848S.W.2d649(Tenn.1993),theSupremeCourtexplainedtheanalysis $  tobeappliedwhenconstruinginsurancepolicies:       8 ` Insurancecontracts...shouldbeconstruedsoastogiveeffecttothe   intentionandexpresslanguageoftheparties.Wordsinaninsurance   policyaregiventheircommonandordinarymeaning.Where p languageinaninsurancepolicyissusceptibleofmorethanone \ reasonableinterpretation,however,itisambiguous.Wherethe H ambiguouslanguagelimitsthecoverageofaninsurancepolicy,that 4 languagemustbeconstruedagainsttheinsurancecompanyandin  p favoroftheinsured. \` x` x  Id. at650(citationsandquotationmarksomitted). 0 @ll)VI.    Theinsurancecompanycontendsthatthephrases residentofyourhouseholdand residing  inthesamehouseholdareclearandunambiguousaccordingtotheholdingof Gredigv.Tennessee | FarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,891S.W.2d909(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Secondly,theinsurancecompany h arguesthattheinjuredpartywasaresidentoftheLeeshouseholdatthetimeoftheaccidentbecause T  herintentwastoremainintheUnitedStatesforatleastsixmonths,shewasrelatedtotheLees,and @! shewaslivingexclusivelywiththeLees.Asaresult,asappliedtothefactsofthiscase,the ,"|  insurancecompanycontendsthatthepolicywouldhaveprovidedliabilitycoveragetoherhadshe #h! beensued,and,asacorollarytothatproposition,doesnotprovidecoveragetotheLeeswithrespect $T" tohersuitagainstthem. $@ #   Ontheotherhand,theappellees!theinjuredpartyandtheLees!arguethattheinsurance &"% policyisambiguousandshouldbeconstruedagainsttheinsurancecompany.Additionally,the '#& appelleesarguethatthetrialcourtcorrectlyfoundthattheinjuredpartywasnotaresidentofthe (#' LeeshouseholdbecauseshewasonlystayingwiththeLeestemporarily,herpresenceinthe )$( householdwastransient,shewasnotunderthecontroloftheLees,shemaintainedapermanent x*%) residenceinKorea,andshealwaysplannedtoreturntoKorea. d+&* Ї  Theissuesnowbeforeuswereaddressedinthe Gredig case.Whatwesaidinthatcase  applieswithequalforcetothefactsoftheinstantcase:  XnvXXXnv  8 ` Asathresholdproposition,weexaminewhether residinginyour t householdisambiguous.In Boydv.PeoplesProtectiveLife ` InsuranceCompany ,345S.W.2d869(Tenn.1961),ourSupreme L  Courthadtodetermineifajuvenilewhowasshotandkilledwhile 8  attemptingtoescapefromastatejuveniledetentionfacilitywherehe $ t hadbeencommittedwasinsuredunderalifeinsurancepolicyissued  ` tothejuvenile'sfather.Thatpolicyinsuredthelivesof Eligible  L  FamilyMembers,aconceptwhichincludedchildren under19years  8  ofagewholiveinhishousehold.TheCourtmadeanextensive $  commentabouttheCaliforniacaseof Islandv.Fireman'sFund   Indem.Co .,30Cal.2d541,184P.2d153(Cal.1947),whichinvolved   anautomobileinsurancepolicywhichcontainedaprovisionincluding   thelanguage memberofhishousehold.ItisclearthatourSupreme   Courthadtheconceptofambiguityinitsmindbecauseitpointedout p thattheCaliforniacourthadcommented thatifaninsurancecontract \ provisioniscapableoftwomeaningstheonefavorabletotheinsured H mustbeadopted. Boyd ,345S.W.2dat872.Immediatelyfollowing 4 thisquote,andwithoutanyindicationfromtheCourtthatit  p considered memberofhishouseholdtobeambiguous,our  \ SupremeCourtsaid:H` x` x    ` 8 Thegreatweightofauthorityseemstobetotheeffect   thatahouseholdmeansthoselivingtogetherunder   oneroof,underoneheadandunderthecommon  controlofoneperson.     8 ` Id .Inholdingthatthedeceasedjuvenilewasnotincludedamong l thoseindividualsdefinedasbeing member[s]ofhishouseholdand X  thusnotcoveredunderthepolicy,theCourtsaid:D!` x` x    ` 8 ...ifthisinsurancecontractisnotreasonably #l! susceptibleofanyotherinterpretationthanthatit $X" meansachildlivingundertheroofwithitsfather, $D # thenitisthedutyoftheCourttosayso.ThisCourt %0!$ isoftheopinionthatitisnotreasonablysusceptible &"% ofanyotherinterpretation.'#&       ` Id .at874. )$(   |*%)   8 ` Therationaleofthedecisionin Boyd hasbeenfollowedinatleast   twounreportedcasesofthisCourt. StacieA.Jamesv.Fireman's  FundInsuranceCo .,13TAM204(Tenn.App.W.S.1988)  ( residentofthesamehouseholdand residentofyourhousehold t languageinautomobileliabilitypolicy); PermanentGeneral ` AssuranceCorporationv.TrentT.WoodsandTravelersInsurance L  Company ,18TAM237(Tenn.App.W.S.1993)( residentinyour 4  householdlanguageinautomobilepolicy). p` x` x   8 ` Theappellatecourtsofthisstatehaveclearlyheldthatlanguage  H  similartothe residinginyourhouseholdlanguageoftheinstant  4  policyissusceptibletodefinition.Totheextentthatitcanbeandhas   beendefinedbyourappellatecourts,thelanguageisnotambiguous.   Ineffect,thedefinitionofthelanguageinquestion,intheabsenceof   adefinitioninthepolicy,hasbeensuppliedbycaselaw.Thathas   beenthecasesinceatleast1961when Boyd wasdecided. ` x` x   8 ` ThePlaintiffsarguethatourdecisionin StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins. X Co.v.Thomas ,699S.W.2d156(Tenn.App.1983),istothe D contrary.Thatcaseinvolvedanautomobileliabilitypolicyprovision 0 whichdefinedarelativeas anyrelativeofthenamedinsuredwhois l aresidentofthesamehousehold.Itistruethatthe Thomas case X includesacommentbynowSeniorJudgeCliffordE.Sandersthatthe D subjectlanguage isessentiallyambiguous;but Thomas was 0 decidedunderVirginialaw.Furthermore,in Thomas ,wesetforth  thefactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetheronewasa   residentofthesamehousehold:` x` x    ` 8 Wethinkthefactorstobeconsideredinacasesuchas | theoneatbarwereaptlyexpressedbytheColorado h CourtofAppealsin UnitedServicesAuto.Asso.v. T  Mione ,34Colo.App.448,528P.2d420(1974)where @! thecourtsaidthefactorstobeconsideredin ,"|  determiningwhetherornotapersonisaresidentofa #h! householdinclude: (1)thesubjectiveordeclared $T" intentoftheindividual,(2)therelativepermanenceor $@ # transientnatureoftheperson'sresidenceinthe %,!$ household,(3)therelationshipbetweentheindividual &"% andthemembersofthehousehold,and(4)the '#& existenceofasecondplaceoflodging.(#'     8 ` Whetheroneappliesthedefinitionof Boyd ,whichwethinkis x*%) controllinghere,orthefactorsof Thomas ,oracombinationofboth, d+&* itisclearthatthelanguageatissueintheinstantcase! residingin  yourhousehold!asdefinedbyourcaselawisnotambiguous.` x` x  Gredig ,891S.W.2dat913914. t   Wedisagreewiththetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthephrase residinginthesame L  householdisambiguous.Whetheryouapplythedefinitionof memberofhishouseholdin Boyd , 8  orusethefactorssetforthin Thomas todefine residinginthesamehousehold,itisclearthatthe $ t languageatissueintheinstantcaseiscapableofdefinition,andisnotambiguous.  `   However,weagreewiththeultimatedecisionofthetrialcourtbecausewefindthatthe  8  injuredpartywasnotaresidentoftheLeeshousehold.SeventyfiveyearoldSaW.Jeong,the $  injuredparty,isacitizenandresidentofSeoul,Korea.ShecametotheUnitedStatesonasixmonth   visaonMay21,1998.HerplanwastolivewiththeLeesforapproximatelythreemonthstohelp   careforhertwingrandsons,inexchangeforcompensationbytheLees.  #  3      ׀Shethenplannedtospend   herfinalthreemonthswitharelativeinCanada.AsaresultoftheaccidentonJune5,1998,the   injuredpartyactuallyremainedwiththeLees,intheUnitedStates,foroneyear. p   Applyingthefactorsin Thomas, theinjuredpartydoesnotfitthedefinitionof residingin H thesamehousehold.First,itwastheinjuredpartysintenttoleavetheLeesresidenceafterashort 4 stayandreturntoKorea.ShedidnotintendtopermanentlyremainwiththeLees;norwassheliving  p therewiththeintenttoremainthereindefinitely.Second,theinjuredpartywasnotapermanent  \ memberoftheLeehousehold;ratherherstaytherewastransientinnature.Third,theinjuredparty H leftherhomeinKoreatovisitherdaughterandsoninlawforalimitedtime,andforthelimited 4 purposeofcaringforhergrandchildren.Atalltimesduringthevisit,theinjuredpartyhadanother   !permanent!placeofresidenceinKorea.Furthermore,unlikeaminorchild,thereisnothingin   therecordtosuggestthatthis75yearoldwomanwas underthecommoncontrolof[oneorboth  oftheLees]. Boyd ,345S.W.2dat872.Simplyput,shewasnot of[theLees]household.    Applyingtherulesestablishedbycaselaw  ,wefindthatthepolicylanguageisunambiguous, l and,hence,itmustbeconstruedaswritten,andnotinfavorofeitherparty.Wealsofindthat,atthe X  timeoftheaccidentonJune5,1998,theinjuredpartywasnotaresidentoftheLeeshousehold.  Therefore,TennesseeFarmersisobligatedtoprovideliabilitycoveragetotheLeesinthecasefiled  againstthembytheinjuredpartyintheGeneralSessionsCourtforBradleyCounty,Tennessee.  @MM(VII. `   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedforthereasonsstated.Thiscaseisremandedfor 8  enforcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuantto $ t applicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,TennesseeFarmersMutualInsurance  ` Company.  L       `     h     _______________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE   m   `