Haulers v. Burke

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
HAULERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ) C/A NO. 03A01-9611-CV-00356
) December 30, 1997
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate C ourt Clerk
v. )
)
)
DAMIAN V. BURKE, ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE
) BRADLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Defendant-Appellee, )
)
and )
)
)
MICHAEL T. HUNTER, )
)
Intervening ) HONORABLE JOHN B. HAGLER, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellee. ) JUDGE
For Appellant For Appellee Hunter
JOHN T. RICE ROGER E. JENNE
Rice, Kreitzer & Winer, P.C. Jenne, Scott & Bryant
Chattanooga, Tennessee Cleveland, Tennessee
For Appellee Burke
NO APPEARANCE
OPINION
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
REMANDED Susano, J.
1
This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Haulers
Insurance Company, Inc. (Haulers). As originally filed, it
sought a declaration that Haulers was not required to indemnify
or defend Damian V. Burke (Burke) and Edward Thompson (Thompson)
with respect to a suit for personal injuries filed by Michael T.
Hunter (Hunter) against Burke, Thompson, and the owners of J & D
Auto Sales. Hunter, who was allowed to intervene in the instant
case, filed a motion for summary judgment, as did Haulers and
Burke. After the underlying tort action was tried, the trial
judge in the case at bar considered the pending motions for
summary judgment. He entered a judgment on July 15, 1996,
declaring that Burke was covered as an insured up to $100,000
under the liability feature of the garage insurance policy issued
by Haulers to Donnie Wear and Joe Guffey, a partnership which
operated a used car lot in Cleveland, Tennessee under the trade
name of J & D Auto Sales.1 Haulers appealed, arguing (1) that
Hunter was not entitled to summary judgment; (2) that the trial
court erred in denying Haulers’ motion for summary judgment; (3)
that the trial court erred in allowing Hunter discretionary
costs; and (4) that the trial court erred in not requiring the
production of a statement given by Thompson to Hunter’s counsel.
I. Background
The instant litigation was commenced on December 13,
1994. It followed the filing of the underlying tort action on
September 6, 1994. The earlier suit was styled Mike T. Hunter v.
1
The trial court also declared that Thompson was not an insured under
the Haulers policy. Since there has been no appeal from this portion of the
lower court’s judgment, we do not find it necessary or appropriate to consider
the correctness of that ruling.
2
Damian V. Burke; Edwin Thompson, also known as Edward Thompson;
and Donnie Wear and Joe Guffey, individually and doing business
as J & D Auto Sales. It was also filed in the Bradley County
Circuit Court. For ease of reference, it will be referred to in
this opinion as Hunter v. Burke or “the underlying tort action.”
The case of Hunter v. Burke was tried to a jury. The
trial judge in the instant case, the Honorable John B. Hagler,
Jr., also presided at the trial of the underlying tort action.
In that case, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff Mike
T. Hunter2 in the amount of $270,000. The trial judge approved
the verdict, and the defendants Damian V. Burke, Donnie Wear, and
Joe Guffey appealed. We affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme
Court denied permission to appeal on December 22, 1997. See
Hunter v. Burke, C/A No. 03A01-9606-CV-00207, 1997 WL 170307(Court of Appeals at Knoxville, April 11, 1997; petition for
rehearing denied June 27, 1997).
II. Hunter v. Burke
Our opinion in Hunter v. Burke, supra, recites the
relevant facts in that litigation:
On the afternoon of June 3, 1994, Burke, who
was then 18 years old, along with his friend,
Edwin Thompson (Thompson), went to J&D Auto
Sales, a used car lot owned and operated by
Wear and Guffey. Earlier that day, Burke and
Thompson had been at Burke’s house with two
or three other individuals, smoking marijuana
and drinking beer. There is evidence that
2
Mike T. Hunter and Michael T. Hunter are one and the same person.
3
Burke approached Guffey and asked to drive a
1971 Chevrolet Malibu. Guffey agreed. Burke
and Thompson drove off the lot with the
latter behind the wheel. Guffey did not
accompany them.
After traveling a short distance, Thompson
apparently realized that he was too impaired
to drive. He then asked Burke to drive.
Burke agreed, despite the fact that he too
was under the influence of marijuana and
alcohol.
Burke drove a few blocks, swerved into the
oncoming lane of traffic, and struck Hunter,
who was riding his bicycle. Burke stopped
the car, and he and Thompson fled the scene.
They were apprehended by the police shortly
thereafter. Burke gave a statement admitting
that he caused the accident.
* * *
Hunter subsequently brought suit against
Burke, Thompson, Wear, and Guffey. At trial,
Burke admitted responsibility for the
accident and the trial court granted Hunter’s
motion for a directed verdict against him on
the issue of liability. It granted the same
motion as to Wear and Guffey, finding them
vicariously liable for Burke’s actions, due
to the fact that Burke had been test-driving
a vehicle owned by them at the time of the
accident. During the court’s jury
instructions, Hunter moved for a voluntary
nonsuit on the issue of punitive damages.
The trial court granted the motion and
consequently submitted the case to the jury
only on the issues of compensatory damages,
and whether Thompson was liable for
negligently entrusting the vehicle to Burke.
The jury found that Thompson was not liable.
It awarded compensatory damages of $270,000
against the remaining three defendants.
Expressly approving of the jury’s verdict,
the trial judge denied the defendants’
motions for a new trial or remittitur.
Id., 1997 WL 170307 at *3-5.
III. Standard of Review
4
An appellate court, when reviewing a grant of summary
judgment, must decide anew if judgment in a summary fashion is
appropriate. Cowden v. Sovran Bank/Central South, 816 S.W.2d
741, 744 (Tenn. 1991). We must affirm the grant of summary
judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” Rule 56.04, Tenn.R.Civ.P.
In making our Rule 56 analysis, we are not bound by the
trial court’s reasoning. Summary judgment is a question of law.
Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997); Cowden, 816 S.W.
at 744. There is no presumption of correctness as to the result
reached by the trial court. Bain, 936 S.W.2d at 622; Cowden, 816
S.W.2d 744.
IV. Analysis
The first two issues raised by Haulers require that we
focus on the pertinent language of the policy of insurance issued
by Haulers to Donnie Wear and Joe Guffey, doing business as J & D
Auto Sales. The parties agree that these issues can be resolved
with reference to the “Who is an Insured” provisions of the
policy under Section II-Liability Coverage:
SECTION II-LIABILITY COVERAGE
A. COVERAGE
5
* * *
1. WHO IS AN INSURED
a. The following are
“insureds” for covered
“autos”.
(1) You for any
covered “auto”.
(2) Anyone else
while using
with your
permission a
covered “auto”
you own, hire
or borrow
except:
(a) The owner
or anyone else
from whom you
hire or borrow
a covered
“auto”. This
exception does
not apply if
the covered
“auto” is a
“trailer”
connected to a
covered “auto”
you own.
(b) Your
employee if the
covered “auto”
is owned by
that employee
or a member of
his or her
household.
(c) Someone
using a covered
“auto” while he
or she is
working in a
business of
selling,
servicing,
repairing,
parking or
storing “auto”
unless that
business is
6
your “garage
operations”.
(d) Your
customers, if
your business
is shown in the
Declarations as
an “auto”
dealership.
However, if a
customer of
yours:
(i)
Has
no
other
avail
able
insur
ance
(whet
her
prima
ry,
exces
s or
conti
ngent
),3
they
are
an
“insu
red”
but
only
up to
the
compu
lsory
or
finan
cial
respo
nsibi
lity
law
limit
s
where
the
cover
3
Burke had “no other available insurance.”
7
ed
“auto
” is
princ
ipall
y
garag
ed.
* * *
(Emphasis added). The policy provides that Haulers’ maximum
liability for any one accident is $100,000.
The trial court held that the material facts regarding
Haulers’ coverage with respect to Burke’s liability in Hunter v.
Burke were undisputed. It determined that Burke was driving a
vehicle owned by Wear and Guffey at the time he struck Hunter’s
bicycle and that Burke was then driving with the actual or
constructive permission of the owners of the car lot. The court
further concluded that the words “customer” and “customers”, as
used in the “Who is an Insured” part of the liability coverage of
the policy, either did not apply to Burke or were ambiguous. It
held that Burke was therefore entitled to the full $100,000 of
coverage.
On this appeal, Haulers makes a number of arguments as
to why Hunter and Burke are not entitled to summary judgment and
why it is entitled to summary judgment. We believe there are
really only two questions:
8
1. Did Burke have the car lot owners’
permission to use their vehicle at the time
of the accident?4
2. If so, what is the limit of Haulers’
coverage as to the liability of Burke?
A. Issue of Permission
Haulers argues that Burke did not have its insureds’
permission to drive their vehicle at the time of the accident;
or, in the alternative, that there is a genuine issue of material
fact with respect to permission that renders summary judgment
inappropriate.
When Hunter v. Burke, supra, was appealed to this
court, we held that Burke “had the permission of Guffey to test-
drive the car.” In view of this specific finding, can Haulers
now re-litigate the issue of permission in this case? We hold
that it cannot. The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a
re-litigation of that issue in this case.
Collateral estoppel has been defined by the Supreme
Court as follows:
the doctrine of collateral estoppel or
estoppel by judgment is an extension of the
principal [sic] of res judicata, and is
generally held to be applicable only when it
affirmatively appears that the issue involved
in the case under consideration has already
been litigated in a prior suit between the
same parties, even though based upon a
4
Haulers also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment (1) because
its insureds’ permission to drive was induced by fraud or misrepresentation;
and (2) because Burke and Thompson exceeded the “scope of consent and
permission.” We find no evidence to support either position.
9
different cause of action, if the
determination of such issue in the former
action was necessary to the judgment.
Dickerson v. Godfrey, 825 S.W.2d 692, 694 (Tenn. 1992)(citing
Home Insurance Co. v. Leinart, 698 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tenn. 1985)
and other cases). In another case, the Supreme Court stated that
[c]ollateral estoppel operates to bar a
second suit between the same parties and
their privies on a different cause of action
only as to issues which were actually
litigated and determined in the former suit.
Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459
(Tenn. 1995)(quoting Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn.
1989))(quoting Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn.
1987)) (emphasis added); or, as stated another way, the doctrine
precludes re-litigation of individual issues
which were actually and necessarily
determined in a former action between the
named parties or their privies on a different
cause of action.
Allied Sound, Inc. v. Neely, 909 S.W.2d 815, 820 (Tenn.App.
1995)(emphasis in original).
The case of Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 669
S.W.2d 665 (Tenn.App. 1984), contains the following explanation
of the concept of privity:
Privity in the traditional sense meant mutual
or successive relationship to the same rights
of property, but various states have employed
10
other definitions when used in the context of
res judicata and collateral estoppel.
* * *
The Tennessee rule holds that privity as used
in the context of res judicata does not
embrace relationships between persons or
entities, but rather [goes] to the subject
matter of the litigation. Cantrell v.
Burnett & Henderson Co., 187 Tenn. 552, 216
S.W.2d 307 (1948).
Id. at 669. In another case, after finding that collateral
estoppel was applicable to the facts before it, the Supreme Court
noted that collateral estoppel was an extension of the doctrine
of res judicata, and that “[p]rivity within the meaning of the
doctrine of res judicata is privity as it exists in relation to
the subject matter of the litigation.” Harris v. St. Mary’s
Medical Center, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tenn. 1987).
In the instant case, it is clear that there was privity
between Haulers and its insureds, Wear and Guffey. These parties
had an identical interest “in relation to the subject matter” of
the underlying tort action. See Harris, 726 S.W.2d at 905. Wear
and Guffey sought to avoid personal liability in the underlying
tort action by showing that Burke did not have permission to
drive their vehicle. By the same token, a lack of permission is
at the core of Haulers’ position in the instant case. If Burke
did not have permission to drive, his liability to Hunter is not
covered under the terms of Haulers’ policy. Under the doctrine
of collateral estoppel, Haulers is estopped from re-litigating
the issue of whether Burke had the permission of the car lot
owners since this issue was previously litigated in the
11
underlying tort action. Since Wear and Guffey are bound by that
decision, so is Haulers. Thus, Haulers is bound by a decision
that has been adversely decided to its position in this case.
B. Coverage
Haulers argues that, even if Burke had permission to
drive the vehicle in question, the trial court erred in holding
that the maximum limit of liability under the policy -- $100,000
-- applies to Burke’s liability to Hunter, as determined in the
underlying tort action. Haulers points to paragraph
A(1)(a)(2)(d)(i) of the liability coverage, which provides, in
pertinent part, as follows:
...if a customer of yours [h]as no other
available insurance (whether primary, excess
or contingent), they are “insured” but only
up to the compulsory or financial
responsibility law limits where the covered
“auto” is principally garaged.
Thus, Haulers claims that its maximum coverage for Burke’s
liability to Hunter in the underlying tort action is $25,000, the
minimum individual limit of coverage under the Tennessee
Financial Responsibility Law. See T.C.A. § 55-12-102(12)(C)(ii).
The trial court held that the word customer “seems to
be synonymous with a buyer or a purchaser.”5 It concluded that,
since Burke did not purchase the car that he was test-driving at
the time of the accident, he was “no more a purchaser than a
5
The word “customer” is not defined in the policy in the context of the
provision under discussion.
12
prospective insured is an insured.” It concluded that Burke was
a “mere ‘prospective customer[].’” Hence, so the trial court
reasoned, paragraph A(1)(a)(2)(d)(i) of the liability section of
the policy did not encompass him within its terms.
In the alternative, the trial court concluded that the
“meaning of ‘customers’ is ambiguous and must, therefore, be
construed against the insurance company and in favor of the
insured,” citing the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v.
Torpoco, 879 S.W.2d 831 (Tenn. 1994). Thus, the trial court held
that, as construed in favor of the insured, Burke was a non-
customer who was driving with permission, and hence entitled to
the full $100,000 of coverage under the general “permission”
language of paragraph A(1)(a)(2).
It is axiomatic that “[i]nsurance contracts are subject
to the same rules of construction and enforcement as apply to
contracts generally.” McKimm v. Bell, 790 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tenn.
1990); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 856 S.W.2d 706, 708
(Tenn.App. 1992); Whaley v. Underwood, 922 S.W.2d 110, 112
(Tenn.App. 1995). Therefore, generally speaking, courts must
enforce contracts as written, absent fraud or mistake. Id.
Words used in insurance contracts must be given their usual and
ordinary meaning. Drexel Chemical Co. v. Bituminous Ins. Co.,
933 S.W.2d 471, 477 (Tenn.App. 1996); Gredig v. Tennessee Farmers
Mut. Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Tenn.App. 1994); Hill v.
Tennessee Rural Health Improvement Ass’n, 882 S.W.2d 801, 802
(Tenn.App. 1994).
13
We must respectfully disagree with the trial court’s
reasoning. We find and hold that the word “customer,” according
to its usual and ordinary meaning, includes within its ambit
someone who comes on a car lot for the purpose of test-driving a
car. In ordinary parlance, one who is considering a purchase --
as was Burke -- is a customer whether that person actually
consummates a purchase or not. This is particularly true in this
case, given the context in which the word is used in the subject
policy.
The policy provisions before us address coverage for
the liability of one using a vehicle “own[ed], hire[d] or
borrow[ed]” by J&D Auto Sales. The word “customer” must be
viewed in this context. To construe the word “customer” to mean,
or at a minimum to include, one who has already purchased a
vehicle is inconsistent with the general focus of the liability
section of the policy. Generally speaking, once an individual
takes ownership of a vehicle, the previous owner -- in this case
J&D Auto Sales -- no longer has a need for liability insurance
since it no longer has any potential liability. The provision in
question is designed to cover a “customer” before ownership
passes; therefore, “customer” cannot be construed to address a
user of a vehicle after ownership has passed.
If possible, we must construe a single word in a policy
of insurance in a way that is consistent with other pertinent
parts of the policy. See Rainey v. Stansell, 836 S.W.2d 117, 119
(Tenn.App. 1992) (“All provisions of a contract should be
14
construed as in harmony with each other... so as to avoid
repugnancy between the several provisions of a single contract.”)
We find no ambiguity in the word “customer” as used in
the Haulers policy.6 We hold that the specific provisions of
paragraph A(1)(a)(2)(d)(i) apply to Burke. It results that
Burke, as a “customer”, is limited to coverage of $25,000 with
respect to his liability to Hunter in the underlying tort case.
In so holding, we do not address the question of available
coverage under the Haulers policy with respect to Hunter’s
judgment against Wear and Guffey. The instant case did not seek
a declaration as to the coverage available to Wear and Guffey
with respect to Hunter’s suit against them. This issue is not
before us and we do not decide it.
C. Other Issues
The trial court allowed discretionary costs to the
appellee Hunter in the amount of $371.00, representing a portion
of the cost of the transcript of the underlying tort action.
That transcript was filed in the instant case. An award of such
costs is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Lock v.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 809 S.W.2d 483, 490
(Tenn. 1991). We find no abuse of that discretion.
6
Customer is generally defined as “a person who purchases goods or
services from another; buyer; patron.” Webster’s Universal College Dictionary
200 (1997 ed.)(emphasis added).
15
The last issue made by the appellant pertains to the
trial court’s refusal to require Hunter to produce a statement
allegedly given by Thompson to Hunter’s counsel. This statement
is relevant to the issue of whether Burke had the permission of
the car lot owners to drive their car at the time of the
accident. Our finding that Haulers is collaterally estopped to
raise this issue renders this question moot.
V. Conclusion
The trial court’s judgment is modified to reflect that
the limit of liability coverage applicable to Burke’s liability
to Hunter under the Haulers’ policy is $25,000. In all other
respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exercising our discretion, we tax the costs on appeal one-half to
the appellant and one-half to the appellee Hunter. This case is
remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary,
consistent with this opinion, and for collection of costs
assessed below, all pursuant to applicable law.
__________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:
________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
________________________
Don T. McMurray, J.
16