WPC b XAgyxQtUX['EQgCVv+_*>NBs }VCzpE3:<IOt:I?1:[GʠJۏ;q*Z2ͤ6I VAB\ 0ǝB45lPPv )tů|[ g\?1S&)x{;%d eb ~Jm,r"m㠑 d1qXڈ13X57 nw"ygoGd`|$"yl/xDp,Ux5Eڗ3 .ng\uZ" Q7 )bV٧i߹ CIimKb#\ %% ^ + 07 U#N w 4 z%  q  m 0D   i/UNNC|EUNEb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K AS9 0R 0D A:\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0p0 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ00:i+00 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(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular r R2U$      1  <  __Wohlfahrts_ԀinsurancecarrierwasGeneralAccidentsInsuranceCompanyatthetimethisactionwas  commenced.Itsubsequentlywasrenamed_CGU_ԀInsuranceCompany.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  R2U$      2  <  __CGU_ԀrefersthisCourttoitsanswer,purportedtobeinthesupplementalrecord.Thesupplementalrecord,  however,includesonlythetrialcourtsorderon_CGU_scrossclaimagainstMs._Scavuzzo_.- -(|G22U$ !.8dd8         0  < d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8gXXdd8  @ uINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#u #Ԉ #   January23,2004Session F XgX #XXg#JAMES_WOHLFAHRT_,etal.v.ARLENE_SCAVUZZO_ԀXgX  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_McNairy_ԀCounty  9 @@No.4771JonKerryBlackwood,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200202641_COA_ԄR3CVFiledMarch16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     XRXXXgPlaintiffsinsurerappealsawardofbenefitstoPlaintiffsunderPlaintiffsuninsured/_underinsured_ V  motoristpolicy.Weaffirm. ? #XgXXXR##XXg#XgX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and J Remanded  4   #XgP#XgX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,J.andHolly  M.Kirby,J.,joined.  JohnThomas_Feeney_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_CGU_ԀInsuranceCompany. r Donald_Capparella_ԀandCarsonW.(Bill)Beck,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,James D _Wohlfarht_ԀandJoni_Wohlfahrt_. -}  OPINION #XXg>#XgX O #XXg #  XgXXRXXXg   ThisisadisputebetweenPlaintiffsJames_Wohlfahrt_ԀandJoni_Wohlfahrt_Ԁ( _Wohlfahrts_)and !"! theiruninsured/_underinsured_Ԁmotoristinsurancecarrier,_CGU_ԀInsuranceCompany( _CGU_)._  #  1      _ԀIn " " January2000,_Wohlfahrts_ԀfiledacomplaintagainstArlene_Scavuzzo_Ԁ(Ms._Scavuzzo_),seeking ## damagesarisingfromanautomobileaccidentwhichoccurredinJanuary1999.Theyalsoserved $$ processontheirinsurancecarrier,_CGU_,pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated5671206(a). v% % Ms._Scavuzzo_Ԁadmittedfaultpriortotrial,andtheissueofdamageswastriedbyajuryonMarch _&!& 5,2002.Thejuryawarded_Wohlfahrts_Ԁdamagesof$195,495.37. H'"'   Afterfailedattemptsatmediationbetween_Wohlfahrts_Ԁand_CGU_,inJune2002,_Wohlfahrts_ )j$) movedforentryofjudgmentagainst_CGU_.Intheirmotion,theysoughttohold_CGU_Ԁliableforthe *S%* _amountofthejudgmentinexcessofMs.Scavuzzos$50,000liabilitypolicy,pluspostjudgment  interestoftenpercent.InAugust2002,thetrialcourtenteredjudgmentforWohlfahrtsinthe  amountof$145,495.37,pluspostjudgmentinterestoftenpercent.CGUfiledatimelynoticeof  appealtothisCourt. k   ISSUESPRESENTED  =    CGUraisesthefollowingissuesforreviewbythisCourt:  ` 8  (1)8`   Whetherplaintiffshaveproventheexistenceofuninsuredmotorist  2  coverageapplicabletothisaccident.  ` x` x 8  (2)8`   Ifproven,didthetrialcourtproperlyapplytheoffsetsforworkers   compensationbenefits? ` x` x   Wohlfahrtspresentthreeadditionalissues: X  8  (1)8`   WhetherCGUInsurancewaivedtherighttodenycoveragebecause *z itfailedtoraisetheissueinthetrialcourt.c` x` x 8  (2)8`   IfthiscourtfindstheissueofCGUInsurancescoveragewasnot 5 waived,whetherthefilingincourtoftheWohlfahrts  uninsured/underinsuredpolicywithCGUalongwiththe  underinsureddrivers(Ms.Scavuzzo)$50,000liabilitypolicy  establishedCGUsliabilityforthejudgmentagainstMs.Scavuzzo.` x` x 8  (3)8`   WhetherthetrialcourtproperlyrefusedtoawardCGUinsurancean [ offsetforworkerscompensationbenefits,wheretheonlyevidence D onthequestionofMr.Wohlfahrtseligibilityforbenefitswashis -} affidavitexpresslyrefutinganysuchliability.f` x` x 8  (4)8`   WhethertheWohlfahrtsareentitledtodamagesforafrivolous  8 appeal,whereCGUInsurancefailedtofileatranscripttosupportits !!  factualassertionsonappeal." !` x` x   StandardofReview  $#   Totheextenttheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourt'srulingis ]&!% denovowithapresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Sullivanv.Sullivan,107S.W.3d F'"& 507,509(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).Wemaynotreversethetrialcourt'sfactualfindingsunlessthey /(#' arecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.Id.at510.Withrespecttothecourt'slegal )h$( conclusions,however,ourreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.#XgXXXR #XRXXXgԀId.#XgXXXRi#XRXXXgԀ *Q%)   CGUSCoverageUnderthePolicyofInsurance +#'+    CGUcontendstothisCourtthatWohlfahrtshavenotproventheexistenceofuninsured  motoristcoverageapplicabletothisaccident,anditarguestothisCourtthatitaffordsnocoverage.  WohlfahrtsassertCGUdidnotraisetheissueofcoverageinthetrialcourt,andthereforemaynot k raiseitforthefirsttimebeforethisCourt.Apartymaynotraiseanissueforthefirsttimeupon T appeal.Cantrellv.WalkerDieCasting,Inc.,121S.W.3d391,396(Tenn.Ct.App.2003).Further, =  theappellantbearstheprimaryburdentoensurethataproperrecordispreparedonappeal.See & v McDonaldv.Onoh,772S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).  _   ThereisnothingintherecordbeforeusindicatingthatCGUdeniedcoverageinthetrial  1  court.  #  2      ׀Moreover,initsbrieftothetrialcourtinoppositiontoWohlfahrtsmotionforentryof    judgment,CGUdidnotdenyoraddresstheissueofcoverage,butaddressedonlytheamountofits   liability.CGUstatedinthebrief, [t]hecourthasdeniedDefendantArleneScavuzzosposttrial   motions,andthecaseisnowbeforethecourtforcalculationoftheamountoftheverdictproperly   payablebyCGUunderitsuninsuredmotoristcoverage. n    Uponreviewoftherecord,whichincludesWohlfahrtspolicyofinsurance,wefindthat @ CGUdidnotdenycoverageunderthepolicyinthetrialcourt.CGUsimplyaddressedtheissueof )y theamountofliability,assertingitsliabilityshouldbeoffsetbyworkerscompensationbenefits. b CGUaccordinglyhaswaivedtheissueofcoverage. K   OffsetofLiabilityofWorkersCompensationBenefits   F&  CGUcontendsthat,assumingcoverageunderthepolicyofinsurance,thetrialcourterred  bynotproperlyapplyinganoffsetforworkerscompensationbenefits.CGUasserts, thePlaintiff  didnotpursueworkerscompensationbenefitsfromhisemployer.However,hisfailuretopursue p benefitsdoesnotpreventapplicationoftheworkerscompensationoffsetforinjuriesoccurring Y withinthecourseandscopeofemployment. B   Amountsduetoaninsuredunderanuninsured/underinsuredmotoristpolicymaybeoffset d byworkerscompensationbenefits.Terryv.AetnaCasualty&SuretyCo.,510S.W.2d509,513 M (Tenn.1974).Moreover,suchanoffsetisallowedforworkerscompensationbenefitamountsfor  6 whichtheinsuredwaseligiblebutdidnotpursue.Dwightv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,701 !  S.W.2d621,622(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).However,CGUcitesustonoevidencethatMr.Wohlfahrt "! wasentitledtoworkerscompensationbenefitsandthathefailedtopursuebenefitsforwhichhe #" waseligible. $#   InitsbrieftothisCourt,CGUsubmits, [t]heissuepresentedtothecourtintheinstant \&!% hearingisadeterminationastotheextentofworkerscompensationbenefitsproperlypayableto E'"&  Mr.Wohlfahrtasaresultoftheinjuriessustainedintheaccident.Thethresholdissue,however, .(~#' iswhetherMr.WohlfahrtwasentitledtoanyworkerscompensationbenefitssuchthatCGUs  liabilitywouldbeoffsetbythosebenefits.     Assuming,arguendo,thattheinjuriestoMr.Wohlfahrtoccurredduringthecourseandscope k ofhisemployment,thereisnoevidenceintherecordtoestablishMr.Wohlfahrtwouldhavebeen T entitledtoworkerscompensationbenefits.Theonlyevidenceintherecordpertainingtoworkers =  compensationisMr.Wohlfahrtsuncontradictedaffidavitthata)atthetimeoftheaccident,hewas & v notactingwithinthescopeofemployment;b)asapartownerofCareSafety,LLC,heisexcluded  _ fromtheworkerscompensationinsurancepolicyofCareSafety;c)hedidnotmakeaworkers  H compensationclaimandwasnotpaidanycompensationforinjuriessustainedintheaccident;d)he  1  doesnothaveanycompensationdueorpayablefromanysource,includingworkerscompensation    ordisabilityforinjuriesresultingfromtheaccident.WeadditionallynotethattheTennesseeCode   providesthatofficersofacorporationmayelecttobeexemptfromoperationoftheWorkers   CompensationLaw.Tenn.CodeAnn.506104(1999).Thus,thecasenowbeforeusis   distinguishablefromthecircumstancesinDwight,wheretheinsuredwasentitledtoworkers n  compensationbenefitsbutfailedtopursuethem.Inthepresentcase,theundisputedevidenceinthe W  recordisthattherearenoworkerscompensationbenefitsproperlypayabletoMr.Wohlfahrt.This @ issueiswithoutmerit. )y   FrivolousAppeal  K 4  WohlfahrtsseekanawardofdamagesforafrivolousappealpursuanttoTennesseeCode  Annotated271122.TheCodeprovides:  8  Whenitappearstoanyreviewingcourtthattheappealfromanycourtofrecordwas  frivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thecourtmay,eitheruponmotionofapartyor p ofitsownmotion,awardjustdamagesagainsttheappellant,whichmayinclude,but Y neednotbelimitedto,costs,interestonthejudgment,andexpensesincurredbythe B appelleeasaresultoftheappeal.+{   Tenn.CodeAnn.271122(2000).CourtsconstruethissectionoftheCodestrictlyinaneffortnot M todiscouragelegitimateappeals.Davisv.GulfIns.Group,546S.W.2d583,586(Tenn.1977).A  6 frivolousappealisone devoidofmeritandwhichcannotreasonablysucceed.#XgXXXR#XRXXXgԀId.#XgXXXR[9#XRXXXgԀItisone !  completely lackinginjusticiableissues.#XgXXXR9#XRXXXgԀ#XgXXXR;:#XRXXXgԀId. "! #XgXXXR:#XRXXXg  InitsappealtothisCourt,CGUhasfailedtoraiseameritoriousissuebasedontherecord. $# CGUcitestothesupplementalrecordtoassertitdeniedcoverageinitsanswerinthetrialcourt. q% $ CGUsanswer,however,isnotinthesupplementalrecordbeforethisCourt.Theresimplyis Z&!% nothingintherecordtosupportCGUscontentiontothisCourtthatitdeniedcoverageinthetrial C'"& court.Uponreviewoftherecord,wefindthatCGUarguedonlythatitwasentitledtooffsetthe ,(|#' amountofitsliability. )e$( #XgXXXR:#XRXXXg  WealsofindthatCGUfailstocitetoanyevidencewhichwouldsupportitsassertionthat *7&* itisentitledtoanoffsetbasedonworkerscompensationbenefitsforwhichMr.Wohlfahrtis + '+ eligible.CGUprovidesnoevidencewhatsoevertosupportthepropositionthatMr.Wohlfahrtis  entitledtoworkerscompensationbenefits.CGUnotonlyfailstodisputeMr.Wohlfahrtsaffidavit  thatheisnoteligibleforworkerscompensationbenefits,butfailseventoaddressoracknowledge  theaffidavitinitsbrieforreplybrieftothisCourt.#XgXXXR=#XRXXXg k   Wedisagree,moreover,withCGUscontentioninitsreplybrieftothisCourtthat =  Wohlfahrtshave attempt[ed]toavoidapplicationoftheoffsetsbysuggestingnoproofofanoffset & v provisionexists....IntheirbrieftothisCourt,Wohlfahrtsacknowledgetheoffsetprovision  _ exists.Moreover,Wohlfahrtsstate, [t]hereisnoquestionthatCGUpleditsrighttosetoffasan  H affirmativedefense.Wohlfahrtscorrectlynote,however,thatCGUfailstocitetoanyevidence  1  intheappellaterecordinsupportofitsclaimforanoffset.Additionally,uponreviewoftherecord,    wehavedeterminedthatthereisnosuchevidence.   Ѐ     WeaccordinglyawardWohlfahrtsdamagesforafrivolousappealpursuanttoTennessee   CodeAnnotated271122.Weawarddamagesintheamountequaltoexpensesandreasonable n  attorneysfeesincurredbythisappeal.Weremandtothetrialcourtforadeterminationofsuch W  damages. @   Conclusion b  E  Inlightoftheforegoing,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Additionally,wegrant 3 Wohlfahrtsrequestfordamagesforafrivolousappeal.Weremandforadeterminationofdamages.  CostofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellant/UnnamedParty,CGUInsuranceCompany,andits  surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.     `     h      p      x  #XgXXXR@#   `     h     ___________________________________ B    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE