WPC.# ylyV/^Y6Z(^ɜ8AWt+L/'B3B-J و2(OYz+D3>_x8Nl675 .6ر<*D8~* ZGiC[wo |vZV"ZAe*f0 /$vg5d b %\^ b 0nU#NwD4H\ zk m #  W   UNN 0D=E[]U@1Q 1u 72 0cb#################################### 0++++ B 03 D3 D- 0K7 7 AS  0! 0D?" A"cz-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-c3|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0    R\$      2  =  _ԀWenotethatafterthecommencementofthiscase,theGeneralAssemblyin1999amendedtheuninsured  motoriststatutetoprovideasfollows: t 8  8`   [_t]he_Ԁuninsuredmotoristinsurancecarriershallbeentitledtocreditforthetotal L amountofdamagescollectedbytheinsuredfromallpartiesallegedtobeliablefor  thebodilyinjuryordeathoftheinsuredwhetherobtainedbysettlementorjudgment  andwhethercharacterizedascompensatoryorpunitivedamages.H ` x` x Tenn.Code.Ann.5671206(_i_)(2000).Inourview,theformerstatuteisunambiguousandappliestosettlementsor   judgments.Accordingly,wedonotrelyupontheamendmentforourholdinginthiscase.  R\$      4  =  _ԀInThomasv.Parker,606S.W.2d538(Tenn.Ct.App.1980),theTennesseeCourtofAppealsalsoconcluded  thattheinvolvementofmultipletortfeasorsdoesnotaffectthestraightforwardapplicationoftheuninsuredmotorist t statute. 8 (\Z  Z(Times New Roman  ' R\$      3  =  _ԀForsupport,Popercites_Sherer_Ԁv._Linginfelter_,29S.W.3d451(Tenn.2000),inwhichweheldthatthe  principlesofcomparativefaultlimitaninsurancecompanys_subrogation_ԀrightsunderTenn.CodeAnn.5671204(a) t G to theinjuriesforwhichtheinsurerhasmadepayment._Sherer_,29S.W.3dat455.Wefind_Poper_sreferenceto_Sherer_  unpersuasivebecauseTenn.CodeAnn.5671204(a)onlyapplies intheeventofpaymenttoanypersonunderthe t coveragerequiredbythispart....Tenn.CodeAnn.5671204(a)(emphasisadded).Inthecasebeforeus,the 8 uninsuredmotorcarrier,Farmers,nevermadeapaymentandwasnotrequiredtodosoforreasonsdiscussedinthis L opinion.Assuch,Tenn.CodeAnn.5671204(a)andtheanalysisin_Sherer_areinapplicable.  R\$      1  =  _Ԁ==Thepolicyfurtherdefinesanuninsuredmotorvehicleasone [_t]o_Ԁwhichthesumofalllimitsofliability  availabletotheinsuredpersonunderallvalidandcollectibleinsurancepolicies...applicabletothebodilyinjury... t islessthantheapplicablelimitsshowninthedeclarationsforuninsuredmotoristscoverageagainstwhichtheclaimis 8 made.#==#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -(|G2\$ !.8dXXd8         0  = d(|3L$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3L$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8[IXXdd8@ $INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON & @||!#$ #HeardatNashville##Ԉ L   June4,2002Session ^ X[IX #XX[Ih#LINDAG._POPER_,ByHusbandandConservator,ThomasC._Poper_  \ v.JOSEPHE.ROLLINS,etal.X[IX   p @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals  p ЀCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  \  @@No.715182T.D.JamesF.Russell,Judge H  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200000391SCR11CVFiledNovember26,_2002_  AV) ` dE<` A     X[IXXX[I#XX[If#X[IXWegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetherthedoctrineofcomparativefaultaffectstheapplication  ofTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d).Thestatuteestablishesthatthelimitofliabilityforaninsurer v providinguninsuredmotoristcoverageistheamountoftheinsurancepolicycoveragelessthesum b ofthelimitscollectibleunderallotherliabilityandprimaryuninsuredmotoristinsurancepolicies, N bonds,andsecurities.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthestatuteoperatesasaliability capforuninsured : motoristinsurancecoveragebyoffsettingtheamountsofallotherliabilityinsurancelimitscollected &v withrespecttotheinjuryordeathandthatthedoctrineofcomparativefaultdoesnotaffectthe b applicationofthestatute.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthisfinding,holdingthatthestatuteclearly N limitstheliabilityforuninsuredmotoristcoveragebyallowingtheoffsetsdescribedbythetrial : court.Afterreviewingtherecordandapplicableauthority,weholdthatTenn.Code.Ann.567 & 1201(d)unambiguouslyallowsanuninsuredmotoristinsurancecarriertolimititsliabilityby  offsettingallotherinsurancepayments,bonds,andsecuritiesapplicabletotheinjuryordeathin  questionandthatTennesseescomparativefaultdoctrinedoesnotaffecttheapplicationofthe   statute.WethereforeaffirmtheCourtofAppealsjudgment. !  #X[IXXX[I# =dd=Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsAffirmed.  ^#"   E.RileyAnderson,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,C.J. 6% $ and_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. "&r!% BerryCooper,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ThomasC._Poper_. 'J#' NathanW._Kellum_,Memphis,Tennessee,andR._Layne_Ԁ_Holley_,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe )"%) appellee,FarmersMutualInsuranceExchange. *&*  @@OO& OPINION  -(- _  X[IXXX[I  BACKGROUND     InJanuaryof1996,LindaPoperdiedfrominjuriessustainedseventeenmonthsearlier#X[IXXX[I#X[IXXX[IԀin t amultivehicleaccidentinMemphis,Tennessee.Herhusband,ThomasC.Poper,filedsuits ` againstthedriversofthevehiclesforwrongfuldeathandasuitagainstthemanufacturerofhis L  wifesvehicle,GeneralMotorsCorporation,forproductsliability.Poperlatersettledallthesuits 8  butoneforatotalof$530,000,including$400,000fromGeneralMotors. $ t   Theremainingdefendant,JosephRollins,hadaliabilitylimitof$10,000underhis  L  insurancepolicy,andhisinsurerofferedtosettleforthefullpolicyamount.Poperdeclinedthe  8  settlementofferandinsteadfiledsuitagainsthisuninsuredmotoristinsurancecarrier,Farmers $  MutualExchangeInsurance( Farmers),allegingthat#X[IXXX[I#X[IXXX[IԀFarmerswasliablefortheamountby   whichitslimitsonuninsuredmotoristliability($100,000)exceededthelimitsofliabilityunder   Rollinsinsurancepolicy($10,000).#X[IXXX[Ie#X[IXXX[IԀ#X[IXXX[I#X[IXXX[IFarmersdeniedliability,assertingthatthetotalamounts   Popercollectedinhissettlementswiththeotherdefendants($530,000)exceededthe$100,000   limitofhispolicyandthatitwasentitledtoanoffset. p   Attrial,FarmersmovedforsummaryjudgmentunderTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d),#X[IXXX[I#X[IXXX[I H whichstates: 4 8  8`   Thelimitofliabilityforaninsurerprovidinguninsuredmotorist  \ coverageunderthissectionistheamountofthatcoverageas H specifiedinthepolicylessthesumofthelimitscollectibleunder 4 allliabilityand/orprimaryuninsuredmotoristinsurancepolicies,   bonds,andsecuritiesapplicabletothebodilyinjuryordeathofthe   insured.#X[IXXX[Iw#X[IXXX[I` x` x (emphasisadded).Pursuanttothisstatute,Farmersarguedthatitwasentitledtocreditforthe  totalamountofsettlementmoneypaidtoPoperbyallofthedefendantsandaccordingly,itwas l notresponsibleforpayinganyofPopersclaim.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentin X  favorofFarmers. D!   Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsconcludedthatunderTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d), #l! thetotalsettlementrecoveryreceivedbyPopercouldbeusedtooffsetFarmersliabilityunder $X" theuninsuredmotoristpolicy.Thetrialcourtsjudgmentwasthereforeaffirmed. $D #   WegrantedPopersapplicationforpermissiontoappeal. &"%   ANALYSIS  (#' Y  InhisappealtothisCourt,PoperarguesthatFarmersshouldbeliableforanylosswithin |*%) thelimitsofitsuninsuredmotoristpolicynotcoveredbytheliabilityinsurancepolicyofthe h+&* remainingdefendant,JosephRollins.PopercontendsthatRollinssautomobilesquarelyfits  withinthepolicysdefinitionof uninsuredmotorvehicleandthatthepolicyphrase towhich #  1        meansthatonlyinsuranceapplicabletoRollinsscarcanbecreditedtooffsetthecoverage  providedbyPopersuninsuredmotoristpolicy.Inaddition,Popercontendsthattheuninsured t motoristpolicymustbeconstruedinlightofthesystemofcomparativefaultadoptedinMcIntyre ` v.Balentine,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),underwhicheachtortfeasorisliableforonlyhisown L  percentageoffault.Insum,PoperarguesthatFarmersshouldnotbeabletooffsetitsliabilityby 8  thesumscollectedfromotherdefendants. $ t   Farmersrespondsthatthetermsoftheuninsuredmotoristpolicy,aswellasTenn.Code  L  Ann.5671201(d),allowittocapitsliabilitybyoffsettingtheamountsofanyinsurance  8  recoveriescoveringtheapplicableinjuryordeath.FarmersalsoarguesthattheCourtofAppeals $  correctlydeterminedthattheplainlanguageofthestatutewasnotaffectedbytheprinciplesof   comparativefaultadoptedinMcIntyre.     Webeginouranalysisbyreviewingprinciplesofstatutoryconstruction.Itisawell   settledprinciplethatthisCourtsroleinconstruingstatutesis toascertainandgiveeffecttothe p legislativepurposewithoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingastatutescoveragebeyondits \ intendedscope.Mooneyv.Sneed,30S.W.3d304,306(Tenn.2000). Thelegislativeintent H andpurposearetobeascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthe 4 statutorylanguage,withoutaforcedorsubtleinterpretationthatwouldlimitorextendthe  p statutesapplication.Id.(quotingStatev.Blackstock,19S.W.3d200,210(Tenn.2000)).  \ Courtsarenotauthorizedtoalteroramendastatuteandmust presumethatalegislaturesaysin H astatutewhatitmeansandmeansinastatutewhatitsaysthere.Id.at307(quotingGleavesv. 4 CheckerCabTransitCorp.,15S.W.3d799,803(Tenn.2000)).Further,theconstructionofa   statuteisaquestionoflawsubjecttodenovoreviewwithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Ivey   v.TransGlobalGas&Oil,3S.W.3d441,446(Tenn.1999).    Withtheseprinciplesinmind,weturnagaintothestatutorylanguageunderreviewin  thiscase.Itprovides: l 8  8`   Thelimitofliabilityforaninsurerprovidinguninsuredmotorist D! coverageunderthissectionistheamountofthatcoverageas 0"  specifiedinthepolicylessthesumofthelimitscollectibleunder #l! allliabilityand/orprimaryuninsuredmotoristinsurancepolicies, $X" bonds,andsecuritiesapplicabletothebodilyinjuryordeathofthe $D # insured.%0!$` x` x  &"% Tenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d)(2000)(emphasisadded).    Inourview,thelanguageofTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d)unambiguouslyallowsan t uninsuredmotoristinsurancecarriertolimititsliabilitybyoffsetting allliabilityand/orprimary ` uninsuredmotoristinsurancepolicies,bonds,andsecuritiesapplicabletothebodilyinjuryor L  deathoftheinsured.Id.(emphasisadded).ThesettlementsPoperreceivedinthiscasetotal 8  $530,000,whichexceedsthe$100,000liabilitylimitofPopersuninsuredmotoristpolicywith $ t Farmers.Thus,FarmerswouldhavenoliabilityundertheclearlanguageofTenn.CodeAnn.  ` 5671201(d). #  2      ׀  L    Similarly,contrarytoPopersargument,Farmerswouldhavenoliabilityunderthe $  languageoftheuninsuredmotoristpolicy.Indeed,thepolicycloselymirrorsthestatuteby   definingan uninsuredmotorvehicleasone:    8  8`    [t]owhichthesumofalllimitsofliabilityavailabletotheinsured   personunderallvalidandcollectibleinsurancepolicies,bonds, p andsecuritiesapplicabletothebodilyinjury...islessthanthe \ applicablelimitsshowninthedeclarationsforuninsuredmotorists H coverageagainstwhichtheclaimismade.4` x` x Inotherwords,Farmerswillpayitsinsuredfordamagescausedbyanuninsuredmotoristonlyto  \ theextentthattheinsuredstotalrecoverieswithrespecttoagiveninjurydonotexceedthe H limitsofthepolicy.BecausePoperstotalrecovery($530,000)exceedsthelimitsofhis 4 uninsuredmotoristpolicy($100,000),Farmerswouldhavenoliability.      PopernonethelessarguesthatthisinterpretationofthestatuteconflictswiththisCourts  comparativefaultjurisprudenceasadoptedinMcIntyrev.Balentineanditsprogeny.  Specifically,hecontendsthatoureliminationofjointandseveralliabilityprecludesFarmers  fromusingthepaymentsoftheotherdefendantstooffsetitsliability.8  #  3      ׀ p Ї  TheCourtofAppealsdeclinedtoacceptPoperspositionandinsteadheldthatthis  Courtsabolitionofjointandseveralliabilitydidnotaffecttheclearstatutorylanguageof56  71201(d).TheappealscourtreliedonthelanguageofErwinv.Rose,980S.W.2d203(Tenn.  Ct.App.1998),whichsaid: t 8  8`   WhileMcIntyrev.Balentinedidabolishjointliability,wedonot L  thinkitchangedthestatutesthatgovernuninsuredunderinsured 8  motoristinsuranceortheprivatecontractpolicyprovisionsthat $ t havebeenconsistentlyconstruedtogivetheinsurancecompany  ` thecredititseeksinthiscase. L ` x` x Id.at207. `     h      $    AlthoughthisCourthasneverspecificallyaddressedthe e ffectofMcIntyreuponstatutes   governinguninsured/underinsuredmotoristinsurance,weagreewiththeCourtofAppeals   conclusionthattheeliminationofjointandseveralliabilityunderMcIntyredoesnotmodifythe   specificlanguageoforalterthemeaningofTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d)forthefollowing t reasons.  `   InMcIntyre,weadoptedamodifiedsystemofcomparativefaultbywhichaplaintiff 8 couldrecoverdamagesiftheplaintiffsnegligencewaslessthanthatofthedefendant.We $t #X[IXXX[I#X[IXXX[Iconcludedthattheadoptionofcomparativefaulteliminatedthedoctrineofjointandseveral ` liabilityandtherebycreatedasysteminwhicheachdefendantisliableforonlythepercentageof L damagescausedbythatdefendantsnegligence.McIntyre,833S.W.2dat5658. 8   OurdecisioninMcIntyredidnotaddressthespecificprovisionsofTennesseesuninsured  motoriststatute.Priortotheadoptionofcomparativefault,however,weconstruedTennessees  uninsuredmotoriststatuteinTerryv.AetnaCasualtyandSuretyCo.,510S.W.2d509(Tenn.  1974),andStateAutoMutualInsuranceCo.v.Cummings,519S.W.2d773(Tenn.1975)#X[IXXX[I?#X[IXXX[I.In  Terry,thisCourtdiscussedthetwogeneraltypesofuninsuredmotoriststatutes!thoseproviding p broadcoverageandthoseprovidingonlylimitedcoverage.Ina broadcoveragejurisdiction, \  theinsuredplaintiffmayrecoveruptothepolicylimitssolongasthesumofplaintiffsrecovery H! undertheuninsuredmotoristcoverageandanyotherpaymentsdonotexceedtheinsuredsactual 4"  damages.Suchcoveragedoesnotallowoffsetswhichlimittheinsuredplaintiffsfulldamage  #p! recovery.Incontrast,a limitedcoveragejurisdictionallowstheinsuredplaintifftocollect  $\" damagesonlyuptoastatutoryminimumnotwithstandingtheactualdamages.Insucha $H # jurisdiction,allsumscollectedcanbecreditedtowardsreachingthestatutoryminimum.Terry, %4!$ 510S.W.2d#X[IXXX[IB#X[IXXX[IԀat513.WefoundthatTennesseesstatutefallswithinthelimitedcoveragecategory  andheldthatthespecificpurposeofthestatuteis toprovideaninsuredarightofrecoveryunder  theuninsuredmotoristprovisionsofhispolicyonlyuptothestatutoryrequiredminimum....  Id. t    InCummings,thisCourtextendedtheprinciplesestablishedinTerrytoamultiple L  tortfeasorsituationverysimilartothepresentcase.InCummings,theplaintiffobtainedamoney 8  judgmentagainsttwotortfeasors!thedriverandtheownerofanuninsuredmotorvehicle#X[IXXX[I%G#ԀX[IXXX[I!for $ t negligence.Theplaintiffreceivedarecoveryfromtheinsurancecarrierforthedriverandthen  ` sought,unsuccessfully,tocollectfromhisownuninsuredmotoristcarrier.LikePoper,the  L  plaintiffinCummingsarguedthathewasentitledtoreceivethebenefitsfromhisinsurerbecause  8  thesuitinvolvedmultipletortfeasorsandfurther,thattheamountreceivedfromtheone $  tortfeasordidnotapplytotheothertortfeasor.Cummings#X[IXXX[ITJ#X[IXXX[I,519S.W.2d#X[IXXX[IL#X[IXXX[IԀat77377.Weheldthat    nothingintheuninsuredmotoriststatutesistobeconstruedasrequiringcoveragebeyondthe   sumof[thestatutoryminimum]eitheraloneorincombinationwithsimilarcoverage....   Cummings,519S.W.2dat775.Wealsoheldthat,withrespecttotheuninsuredmotoriststatute,    thelegalliabilityofmorethanonepersonforasingletortisimmaterial....Id.(emphasis p added). #  4      ׀ \   Accordingly,PopersargumentthatTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d)providesbroad 4 coveragefortheinsuredandthatadherencetoMcIntyrerequiresthathereceivepaymentsupto  p hisactualdamagesevenifthetotalexceedsthestatutoryminimum,conflictswiththelimited  \ languageofthestatuteanditsnarrowpurposeasdescribedinTerryandreinforcedinCummings. H WethereforeconcludethatTenn.CodeAnn.5671201(d)isnotaffectedbytheprinciplesof 4 comparativefaultoutlinedinMcIntyre.#X[IXXX[IM#X[IXXX[I     CONCLUSION   R  Afterreviewingtherecordandapplicableauthority,weholdthatTenn.Code.Ann.56 l 71201(d)unambiguouslyallowsanuninsuredmotoristinsurancecarriertolimititsliabilityby X  offsettingallotherinsurancepayments,bonds,andsecuritiesapplicabletotheinjuryordeathin D! questionandthatTennesseescomparativefaultdoctrinedoesnotaffecttheapplicationofthe 0"  statute.WethereforeaffirmtheCourtofAppealsjudgment.#X[IXXX[IrR#ԀCostsofappealaretaxedtothe #l! appellant. $X"      `     h     _________________________________ &"%    `     h     E.RILEYANDERSON,JUSTICE