WPC t[kbvokdv{O KM4,E)_B%l֎$ %M& d_Ȟ/t"3$rĿTn86ŋWRb;Aj--J}W)0+{f&îzNbRֺ!WA1 %IrP9s&b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 11NEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0 +L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(֟yDTƢ 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|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2+x$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3)$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3)$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   June20,2001Session X XX #XX#SUSANWEISS,etal.v.STATEFARMFIRE&CASUALTYCOMPANY,  ` etal.XX  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty 0  @@No.306126T.D.JohnR._McCarroll_,Jr.,Judge  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200002506_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust21,_2001_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A      X${XXXThe_Weisses_ԀprocuredsupplementalinsurancefromStateFarmthroughitsagent,Mr.Brooks.In  procuringsuchinsurance,Mr.Weissrejecteduninsured/_underinsured_Ԁmotoristcoverage.Mrs.Weiss   wasinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentwhereinshesustaineddamagesexceedingtheamount  coveredbyherinsurancepolicy.Astheotherdriverinvolvedintheaccidentwaseitheruninsured  or_underinsured_,the_Weisses_ԀsoughtrecoveryfromStateFarm.StateFarmdeniedtheclaim, ~ determiningthatthe_Weisses_Ԁdidnothavecoverageundertheirumbrellapolicy.The_Weisses_ j broughtanactionagainstStateFarmandMr.Brooks.StateFarmandMr.Brooksfiledamotionfor V summaryjudgment,whichthetrialcourtgranted.Weaffirm. B #XXX X${##XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and n Remanded  ^   #X #XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S. > andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. . R.DouglasHanson,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellants,SusanWeissandJosephL.Weiss. !  GeorgeT.Lewis,III,andLori_Hackleman_ԀPatterson,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,State #" FarmFire&CasualtyCo.andLarryO.Brooks. $# o  OPINION #XX #XX n&!% #XX #  XX X${XXX  JosephL.Weiss(Mr.Weiss)andSusanWeiss(Mrs.Weiss,collectivelythe_Weisses_) N(#' maintainedanautomobileinsurancepolicywithStateFarmFire&CasualtyCompany(StateFarm) :)$( withcoverageintheamountof$100,000perperson/$300,000peroccurrenceandwiththesame &*v%) amountsinforceforuninsured/_underinsured_Ԁmotorist(UM)coverage.In1993,Mr.Weisspurchased +b&* fromStateFarmagent,LarryO.Brooks(Mr.Brooks),apersonalliabilityumbrellapolicyinthe +N'+ amountof$1,000,000,whereinbothMr.WeissandMrs.Weisswerenamedinsured.Mr.Brooks ,:(, offeredMr.WeisstheoptionofpurchasingUMcoverageinamountsthatwouldmatchthe_Weisses_ -&)- liabilitycoverageundertheumbrellapolicy,butMr.Weissexpresslyrejectedsuch.Mr.Weiss  relieduponMr.Brookstokeephimadvisedofnecessarycoveragesandlimitstomakesurehis  familywasfullyinsured.Mr.Brooksprovidedthe_Weisses_Ԁwithadvertisementsandbrochures  concerningadditionalandimportantcoverages;however,hedidnotnotifythe_Weisses_Ԁregarding t UMissues. `   InDecemberof1998,Mrs.WeisswasinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentwithBrianWilson 8  (Mr.Wilson).Asaresult,Mrs.Weisssustainedinjuriesandincurredmedicalbillsofapproximately $ t $350,000,whichexceededthe_Weisses_$100,000perpersonUMcoverage.BecauseMr.Wilson  ` waseitheruninsuredor_underinsured_,the_Weisses_ԀmadeaclaimtoStateFarmundertheirinsurance  L  policy.StateFarmdeniedcoverageundertheumbrellapolicy.Asaresult,the_Weisses_Ԁbroughtan  8  actionagainstStateFarmandMr.Brooks,allegingvariousbreachesofdutiesowedbyinsurance $  agentsandcompanies,violationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,andstatutoryviolations   governingUMcoverage.StateFarmandMr.Brooksfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,which   wasgrantedbythetrialcourt.InitsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoStateFarmandMr.Brooks,the   trialcourtdeterminedthatStateFarmandMr.Brooksdidnothaveadutytosellthe_Weisses_Ԁmore   coveragethantheyrequestedorselected;thatMr.WeisssrejectionofUMcoverageontheumbrella p policywaseffectivetoalsorejectsuchcoverageonbehalfofMrs.Weiss;andthatMr.Weisssclaim \ oflossofconsortium,aswellastheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActclaims,wereinapplicable. H Thisappealfollowed. 4   The_Weisses_Ԁraisethefollowingissues,asstatedintheirbrief,forthiscourtsreview:  \ 8  1.0`   WhetherJosephWeisshadactualorapparentauthoritytowaiveorreject 4 SusanWeissrighttouninsuredmotoristcoverageundertheumbrellapolicy. ` `  8  2.0`   WhetherSusanWeissmadeaknowingandintelligentwaiverofuninsured  motoristcoverageunder[the]umbrellapolicy.` `  8  3.0`   Whetherthere_exist[s_]anissueoffactastowhetherLarryBrooksandState l FarmowedadutytoSusanWeisstomakesuresheunderstoodheravailable X  insurancecoverages.D!` `  0   (#(# 8  4.0`   WhetherStateFarmandLarry_Brook[s_]failuretoadviseMrs.Weissasto #l! herlevelofuninsuredmotoristcoveragewasacauseinfactofherdamages.$X"` `    Thisappealisfromagrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants,StateFarmand &"% Mr.Brooks.Summaryjudgmentisappropriateifnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistandthe '#& _movant_Ԁprovesitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. See Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Onappeal, (#' wemusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowingall )$( reasonableinferencesinitsfavoranddiscardingallcountervailingevidence. See_Shadrick_Ԁv._Coker_ , |*%) 963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998)(citing Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,210-11(Tenn.1993)). h+&* Sinceourreviewconcernsquestionsoflaw,wereviewtherecord denovo withnopresumptionof  correctnessofthejudgmentbelow. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); _Bain_Ԁv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622  (Tenn.1997).    ActualorApparentAuthority  ` #  Thefactsareundisputedthatin1993,Mr.andMrs.Weissdiscussedanddecidedtoprocure 4  supplementalautomobileinsurancecoverageintheformofanumbrellapolicyintheamountof  p $1,000,000.Mr.WeissmetwithMr.Brooksregardingtheumbrellapolicy,andwhenaskedbyMr.  \ BrookswhetherhewishedtohaveUMcoverageundertheumbrellapolicy,Mr.Weissexpressly  H  rejectedsuch.Mr.Weissregularlyhandledallthetransactionspertainingtoinsurance,andneither  4  Mr.WeissnorMrs.WeissdisputethatMr.Weisshadtheauthoritytoprocuresuchinsurance.   Rather,the_Weisses_ԀcontendthatMr.WeissdidnothavetheauthoritytorejectUMcoverageonMrs.   Weisssbehalf.     Section5671201(a)(2)oftheTennesseeCodestates,inpertinentpart,asfollows,  [_A]ny_    namedinsuredmayrejectinwritingsuchuninsuredmotoristcoveragecompletelyorselectlower l limitsofsuchcoverage....Anydocumentsignedbythenamedinsuredorlegalrepresentative X whichinitiallyrejectssuchcoverageorselectslowerlimits shallbebindinguponeveryinsuredto D whomsuchpolicyapplies ....Tenn.CodeAnn.5671201(a)(2)(2000)(emphasisadded). 0 Baseduponthislanguage,the_Weisses_,intheirbrief,statethattheissuebeforeus,then,iswhether l Mr.WeissactedasMrs.Weissslegalrepresentativeinrejectingorwaivingheruninsuredmotorist X coverage.Wefindsuchissuetobewithoutmerit. D   TheumbrellapolicyprocuredbyMr.WeisslistedbothMr.WeissandMrs.Weissasthe  namedinsured.BecausebothMr.WeissandMrs.Weissarenamedinsured,theycanactonbehalf  oftheotherandbindtheothertothetermsoftheinsurancepolicy.Further,wenotethatMrs.Weiss  indeedratifiedherhusbandsdecisiontorejectUMcoverage.    Ratificationisconsideredvalidandbindingiftheprincipalhas,atthetimeofratification, h fullknowledgeofthematerialfactsandcircumstancessurroundingtheunauthorizedact. See T  Webberv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co. ,____S.W.3d____,No.E199901909SCR11CV, @! 2001WL740770,at*3(Tenn.July3,2001)(citing _Gough_Ԁv.InsuranceCo.ofN.Am. ,11S.W.2d ,"|  887,888(1928)).Accordingtohertestimonyinherdeposition,Mrs.Weissratifiedtheactsofher #h! husbandafterobtainingfullknowledgeofthematerialfactsandcircumstancessurroundingher $T" husbandsrejectionofUMcoverage: $@ # 8  Q:0`   WhendidyoubecomeawarethatMr.Weisshadsignedthosetwoboxesin &"% thelowerlefthandcornerrejectinguninsuredmotoristcoveragewithrespect '#& totheumbrellapolicy?(#'` `  8  A:0`   Afterhisdeposition[February15,2000].x*%)` `   d+&* 0  0` (#(#....` (#` (# 8  Q:0`   Doyouthinkyourhusbandwaswrongnottohaveboughttheuninsured  motoristcoverage?t` `  0  0` (#(#....L ` (#` (# 0  A:0` (#(#No,Idontfeellikemyhusbandwas,no.0p` (#` (#$ tp(#p(# 0  Q:0` (#(#Whydoyoufeelthatway? L ` (#` (# 8  A:0`   Becausewedidnthavealotofmoneythen.Itwouldcostalotmoremoney. $  Wewere,youknow ` `      Ratification,inthiscase,mayalsobesaidtohaveoccurredasamatteroflaw.Bringinga p lawsuittoenforcethetermsofacontractevidencestheintentionoftheprincipaltoratifyan \ otherwiseunauthorizedcontract. SeeWebber ,2001WL740770,at*4( Thelawhaslongbeen H settledthat[_b]y_Ԁbringinganactiononthecontractaprincipalwillbeheldtohaveratifiedit, 4 whethertheactionbeagainstthethirdperson,oragainsttheagent,fortheproceedsofthe  p contract.)(citing MemphisSt.Ry.Co.v.Roe ,102_S.W._Ԁ343,348(Tenn.1907)).Thus,basedupon  \ theclearlanguageofsection5671201(a)(2)oftheTennesseeCodeanduponMrs.Weisss H ratificationofMr.WeisssrejectionofUMcoverage,wefindthatMr.Weisssrejection,asanamed 4 insured,wasbindingonMrs.Weissasshewasalsoanamedinsuredtowhomtheumbrellapolicy   applied.     DutiesofInsuranceAgentsandInsuranceCompanies   9  The_Weisses_ԀaskthiscourtonappealwhetherStateFarmandMr.Brookshadadutytomake h sureMrs.Weissunderstoodherinsurancecoverageandwhetherthefailuretoadviseherofherlevel T  ofUMcoveragewasacauseinfactofherdamages.AccordingtoTennesseelaw,unlessthereexists @! anagreementcreatingcontinuingresponsibilities,aninsuranceagentsobligationtoaclientends ,"|  whentheagentobtainstheinsuranceaskedforbytheclient. See 16Tenn._Juris_. Insurance 8 #h! (2001)(citing _Quintana_Ԁv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,774S.W.2d630(Tenn.Ct.App. $T" 1989)).Here,Mr.WeissmetwithMr.Brooksinordertoobtainsupplementalinsuranceintheform $@ # ofanumbrellapolicy.Aspartoftheumbrellapolicy,Mr.Brooksofferedthe_Weisses_ԀUMcoverage %,!$ inamountsequaltotheirliabilitycoverageundertheumbrellapolicy.Mr.Brooksrecommended &"% thiscoveragetothe_Weisses_,statingthatitwasanimportantcoverageandthatitwasrelatively '#& inexpensive.Despitethisinformation,Mr.Weissexpresslyrejectedsuchcoverage.Therecorddoes (#' notdemonstratethatthe_Weisses_ԀenteredintoanagreementwithMr.BrookscontinuingMr.Brooks )$( responsibilities.Basedupontheforegoingfactsandlaw,wefindthatStateFarmandMr.Brooks x*%) didnotoweadutytothe_Weisses_Ԁtosellthemmorecoveragethantheyrequestedorselected. d+&* Further,weareoftheopinionthatStateFarmandMr.BrooksdidnotoweadutytoinformMrs.  Weissofthecoveragesselectedbyherhusband;hencethefailureofStateFarmandMr.Brooksto  dosowasnotacauseinfactofMrs.Weisssdamages.    Conclusion  ` B  Insummary,wehavedeterminedthatMr.WeisssrejectionofUMcoverageunderthe 4  _Weisses_umbrellapolicywasbindingonMrs.Weiss.WehavefurtherdeterminedthatStateFarm  p andMr.Brooksowednodutytothe_Weisses_Ԁtosellthemmorecoveragethantheyrequestedor  \ selected.Basedupontheforegoingconclusions,theremainingissuesare_pretermitted_.Wehereby  H  affirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentinallrespects.Costsofthisappealaretaxedto  4  theappellants,SusanWeissandJosephL.Weiss,andtheirsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue   ifnecessary.#XXX X${ #      `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE