WPC/- Zk1#w{iJbnf :"`*}ҕ"Dc &-]v 1皾8)IYJq1*Ɖ*B "MRIg;%ShAZ|h }H 4c{2"tx0YA)[v `J|G`w~;HI$kP$cU[UI/XbsSgcXWq3${zmfskC |m8kMpβ iIk cݏ}6zL"~6O@;uKn‡g ~Z&JGtCЁ)t%6|w$ p9MJvȏ @q/2 QxhTGop96</<^cP-]ٓ`a6jހZ57.Us"jF<;c9Rb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN; 0= 0+ET 0lT 0\ 0A 0# 0 0 0 0 0i 0B 0 0 0 0 0R 0 0 0! 0" 0e# 07$b% 0% 0% 0& 0i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i' 0,(,(,(,( B)) 04) D3) D- * 0K8*8* AS** 0+ 0D@, A,HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0F%)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~( 3 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(uH Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   J R$      1  XX  _ Enhancedinjuriesrepresenttheportionofthetotaldamagesforwhichthemanufacturer  ispotentiallyliable.SeeWhitehead,897S.W.2dat69495._Inthiscasetheclaimfor enhanced  injuriesis nothingmorethanaclaimforinjuriesthatwereactuallyandproximatelycausedbythe  defectiveproduct.Seee.g.id._2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  - -28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  (|G2$ !.8Ddd8         0  XX d(|3Ǎ$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ǎ$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _D8XXdd8  @7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  XXD #DXXk#  SUZANNESHERER,etal.v.RAYALLENLINGINFELTER,etal.XXD   @  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty   @  No.220496Harold_Wimberly_,Judge   @*AV) ` dE<o ` A߈ p   @  No.E199800154SCR11CVDecidedJuly14,2000 k  @@@#FORPUBLICATION W  AV) ` dE<B` A C    XXXX# DX X# XX DWegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetheraninsurersrightof_subrogation_ԀunderTenn.Code >  Ann.56-7-1204extendstodamagesforenhancedinjuriesreceivedbytheinsuredastheresultof *z  anothertortfeasorsactions.Weconcludethatthesubrogationrightoftheinsurerislimitedtothe f injuriesforwhichtheinsurerhasmadepayment.#XXX Xg#ԀWeaffirmtheCourtofAppeals. R  Tenn.R.App.P.Rule11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsAffirmed.  * Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAnderson,C.J.andDrowota,Birch,and  Barker,JJ.,joined.  ArthurG.Seymour,Jr.andJamesE.Wagner,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,United v ServicesAutomobileAssociation. b JessD.Campbell,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,SuzanneShererandhusband,Charles : ShererasparentsandnaturalguardiansofTealSherer. &v   @66' OPINION  N   Teal_Sherer_Ԁsustainedseriousinjuriesastheresultofaonecaraccident.Ms.Shererwasa !&! passengerinthevehicleinvolvedintheaccident.RayLinginfelterwasoperatingthevehicleatthe "" timeoftheaccident.Theplaintiffs,TealShererandherparents,SuzanneShererandCharlesT. ## Sherer( Sherers),initiatedsuitagainstMr.Linginfelterandtheownerofthevehicle,Linginfelter $$ Landscaping,Inc.( Linginfelters).TheLinginfeltersinsurancecarrierenteredintoasettlement % % agreementwiththeplaintiffs.Theagreementprovidedthat$175,000wouldbepaiddirectlytothe r&!& Sherersandthatanother$125,000wouldbecontributedtowardastructuredsettlement. ^'"'   TealShererwasaninsuredunderbothherfather'sprimaryinsurancepolicyandherfather's 6)$) umbrellainsurancepolicy.BothpolicieswereunderwrittenbyUnitedServicesAutomobile "*r%* Association("USAA")andprovideduninsuredmotoristcoverageforTealSherer.Theprimary +^&+ policyprovideduninsured/_underinsured_Ԁmotoristcoverageintheamountof$300,000perperson. +J', Theumbrellapolicyincreasedthecoveragelimitsto$1,000,000.USAAsettledthe_Sherers_ ,6(- _underinsured_Ԁmotoristclaimforatotalof$700,000. -").' Ї  TheSherersthenfiledaproductliabilityactionagainstGeneralMotorsCorporation("GM"),  themanufacturerofthevehicleinwhichTealShererwasapassengeratthetimeoftheaccident.  TheSherersallegedintheircomplaintthatGM'suseofalaprestraintratherthanalapandshoulder  beltcombinationresultedinenhancedinjuriestoTeal_Sherer_.TheactionagainstGMsought t $30,000,000incompensatoryandpunitivedamages. `   TheSherersfiledaComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgmentallegingthatUSAAdidnothave 8  arightofsubrogationagainstanyrecoverythatthe_Sherers_ԀmightreceivefromGM.TheSherers $ t arguedthatGMwasliableforadditionalinjuriestoTealShereraboveandbeyondthosecausedby  ` thedriver'snegligence.ThesuitagainstGMwasultimatelysettledforanundisclosedamount.As  L  tothe_subrogation_Ԁissue_thetrial_Ԁcourtheld:  8  8  8`   [_T]he_ԀsettlementagreementbyGeneralMotorsis,whileforthesame   injury,notforthesameportionofthatinjuryforwhichpaymentwas   madeorsettlementwasmadebyUSAAonbehalfofthedriverofthe   vehicle;thattheseareseparate,eventhoughresultinginoneinjury,   andthatthesubrogationwouldnotbeforthisportionoftheinjury p attributabletoGeneralMotors.\` x` x TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourt'sdecision.Wegrantedreview. 4   @& ANALYSIS   \   USAAarguesthatitisentitledtosubrogateagainstanyrecoverytheSherersmayobtainas 4 aresultoftheproductliabilityactionagainstGM.TheprimaryinsurancepolicyissuedbyUSAA   provided:   8  8`   Ifwemakepaymentunderthispolicyandthepersontoorforwhom  paymentwasmadehasarighttorecoverdamagesfromanother,we  shallbesubrogatedtothatright.l` x` x Theumbrellapolicyincludedasimilarprovisionproviding: D! 8  8`   Withrespecttodamagescausedbyanuninsuredmotorvehicleto #l! whichabodilyinjuryliabilitybondorpolicyappliesatthetimeofthe $X" accident,thelimitofliabilityunderthisendorsementshallbereduced $D # byallsumspaidorpayablebyoronbehalfofpersonsor %0!$ organizationswhomaybelegallyresponsible.&"%` x` x Notwithstandingtheabovecontractuallanguage,theissueofwhetherUSAAissubrogatedtothe (#' plaintiffsrightagainstGMorsubrogatedonlytotheplaintiffsrightagainsttheownerandoperator )$( oftheuninsuredmotorvehicleiscontrolledbystatute._SeeFleming_Ԁv.Yi,982S.W.2d868,870 |*%) (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Thelawiswellestablishedthat anystatuteapplicabletoaninsurance h+&* policybecomespartofthepolicyandsuchstatutoryprovisionsoverrideandsupersedeanythingin  thepolicyrepugnanttotheprovisionsofthestatute.HermitageHealth&LifeIns.Co.v.Cagle,  420S.W.2d591,594(Tenn.Ct.App.1967).  8  8`   [Uninsured/_underinsured_Ԁmotorist]statutes,asamatteroflaw, ` becomeprovisionsofallautomobileinsurancepoliciesissuedfor L  deliveryinTennessee.Wherethereisaconflictbetweenastatutory 8  provisionandapolicyprovision,thestatutoryprovisionmustprevail.$ t` x` x Fleming,982S.W.2dat870(citationsomitted).Theuninsuredmotoristcoverageprovisionsare  L  codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.56-7-1201,etseq.Thestatedpurposeoftheuninsuredmotorist  8  coverageistoprovide $  8  8`   fortheprotectionofpersonsinsuredthereunderwhoarelegally   entitledtorecovercompensatorydamagesfromownersoroperators   ofuninsuredmotorvehiclesbecauseofbodilyinjury. ` x` x Tenn.CodeAnn.56-7-1201(a).An uninsuredmotorvehicleisdefinedas \ 8  8`   amotorvehiclewhoseownership,maintenance,orusehasresulted 4 inthebodilyinjury,death,ordamagetopropertyofaninsured,and  p forwhichthesumofthelimitsofliabilityavailabletotheinsured  \ underallvalidandcollectibleinsurancepolicies,bonds,and H securitiesapplicabletothebodilyinjury,death,ordamagetoproperty 4 islessthantheapplicablelimitsofuninsuredmotoristcoverage   providedtotheinsuredunderthepolicyagainstwhichtheclaimis   made.` x` x Tenn.CodeAnn.56-7-1202(a).Accordingly,thecoveragecompensatesfordamagescausedby  ownersoroperatorsofmotorvehicleswhoeitherlackinsurancecoverageorcarrycoverage l insufficienttopayforthedamagesoccasionedbytheirnegligentoperationofamotorvehicle. X    Theuninsuredmotoriststatuteestablishesaninsurancecompany'srightofsubrogation.The 0"  subrogationprovisionprovides: #l! 8  8`   Intheeventofpaymenttoanypersonunderthecoveragerequiredby $D # thispart,andsubjecttothetermsandconditionsofsuchcoverage, %0!$ theinsurermakingsuchpaymentshall,totheextentthereof,be &"% subrogatedtoalloftherightsofthepersontowhomsuchpayment '#& hasbeenmade,andshallbeentitledtotheproceedsofanysettlement (#' orjudgmentresultingfromtheexerciseofanyrightsofrecoveryof )$( suchpersonagainstanypersonororganizationlegallyresponsiblefor |*%) thebodilyinjuryorpropertydamage forwhichsuchpaymentis h+&* made ,includingtheproceedsrecoverablefromtheassetsofan  insolventinsurer.` x` x Tenn.CodeAnn.56-7-1204(a)(emphasisadded).Thisstatutoryprovisionprovidesthatthe t insurerwhomakesapaymentundertheuninsuredmotoristcoverage stepsintotheshoesofthe ` personreceivingthepaymentandmayrecoveragainstanypersonwhooccasionedthepaymentby L  theinsurer. 8    Takentogether,thelanguageofthesestatutes:1)limitstheliabilityofanuninsuredmotorist  ` carriertopaymentsfordamagescausedbytheuninsured/underinsuredmotoristintheownership,  L  maintenance,oruseofthevehicle;and2)allowstheinsurertorecoverfromitsinsuredonlythose  8  amountsreceivedfromthepersonorentitycausingthosesamedamages. $    USAAarguesthat thesubrogationstatuteprovidesforbroadsubrogationrightsagainstany   recoverytheinsuredmayreceive.Insupportofitsargument,USAAreliesuponErwinv.Rose,   980S.W.2d203(Tenn.Ct.App.1998),andThompsonv.Parker,606S.W.2d538,540(Tenn.Ct.   App.1980).WenotethatErwinandThompsonconstruedTenn.CodeAnn._56-__7-1205_Ԁanddid p notaddress56-7-1204,thesectionoftheuninsuredmotoriststatuteprovidingfor_subrogation_.We \ expressnoopinionastotheholdingofthosecases,inasmuchastheconstructionof56-7-1205is H notpresentlybeforeus. 4   InMcIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52,_57(Tenn._Ԁ1992),thisCourtadoptedthedoctrine  \ ofmodifiedcomparativefault.Thepurposeofcomparativefaultistoassessliabilityinproportion H tofault.SeeOwensv.TruckstopsofAm.,915S.W.2d420,429(Tenn.1996);McIntyre,833S.W.2d 4 at58.Wehavestatedthat wheretheseparate,independentnegligentactsofmorethanone   tortfeasorcombinetocauseasingle,indivisibleinjury,eachtortfeasorwillbeliableonlyforthat   proportionofthedamagesattributabletoitsfault.Owens,915S.W.2dat430.Theadoptionof  comparativefaultrenderedthedoctrineofjointandseveralliabilityobsolete.Seeid.;McIntyre,833  S.W.2dat_58.In_ԀWhiteheadv.ToyotaMotorCorp.,897S.W.2d684,69394(Tenn.1995),weheld  thatcomparativefaultprincipleswillapplytoproductsliabilityactionssuchasthecasebeforeus, l inwhichthedefectiveproductdidnotcauseorcontributetotheunderlyingaccidentbutdid_cause XXXX X   enhanced_Ԁinjuries._ #  1      _ D!   Inthiscase,theCourtofAppealscorrectlyconstruedthestatutorylanguageofTenn.Code #l! Ann.56-7-1204andappliedtheseprinciplesofcomparativefaulttoholdthat56-7-1204(a) $X" providesthattheinsurerssubrogationrightsarelimitedtotheinjuriesforwhichtheinsurerhas $D # madepayment.USAAspaymentscompensatedtheSherersfortheinjuriestoTealShererarising %0!$ fromthenegligenceofMr.Linginfelter,theuninsuredmotorist,intheoperationofthevehicle. &"% GMspayments,ontheotherhand,compensatedtheSherersfortheenhancedoradditionalinjuries  toTealSherercausedbythevehiclesrearseatbeltsystem.    WeagreewiththelowercourtsthatGMspaymenttotheShererscompensatedthemfora t differentportionoftheinjuriessustainedbyTealSherer.WeholdthatunderTenn.CodeAnn. ` 56-7-1204(a)USAAmaynotexerciseitssubrogationrightsagainsttheportionoftheSherers L  recoveryreceivedfromGM. 8    WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.Costsofthisappealaretaxedagainst  ` USAA,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXX Xٱ7#