Thelma W. Kelley v. John E. Vance and Betty L. Vance, and Allstate Insurance Company
This text of Thelma W. Kelley v. John E. Vance and Betty L. Vance, and Allstate Insurance Company (Thelma W. Kelley v. John E. Vance and Betty L. Vance, and Allstate Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON FILED June 9, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk THELM W KELLEY, A . ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00031 ) Appe l l a nt , ) SEVI ER CI RCUI T ) v. ) HON. BEN W HOOPER, I I , . ) J UDGE J OHN E. VANCE a nd ) BETTY L. VANCE, ) ) AFFI RMED De f e nda nt s , ) AND ) REMANDED a nd ) ) ALLSTATE I NSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appe l l e e . )
ROBERT L. OGLE, J R. , OGLE & WALLACE, P. C. , Se vi e r vi l l e , f or Ap p e l l a nt .
J AM ES S. M c DONALD, DUNN, M c DONALD & COLEM a a AN, P. C. , Kn o x v i l l e , f or Appe l l e e .
O P I N I O N
Fr a nks . J .
I n t hi s a c t i on , pl a i nt i f f s e e ks uni ns ur e d mot or i s t
c o v e r a ge f r om he r i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny, a nd t he Tr i a l Cour t ,
r e s p o n di ng t o mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt , gr a nt e d j udgme nt t o
d e f e n d a nt Al l s t a t e I ns ur a nc e Compa ny ( Al l s t a t e ) . Pl a i nt i f f
h a s a ppe a l e d.
Pl a i nt i f f ha s r a i s e d t wo i s s ue s on a ppe a l : 1. W t he r t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n gr a nt i ng he s umma r y j udgme nt hol di ng t ha t t he i ns ur e d di d not c ompl y wi t h t he t e r ms of he r i ns ur a nc e pol i c y t ha t s he ?pr ompt l y s e nd ( Al l s t a t e ) c opi e s o f t he l e ga l pa pe r s i f a s ui t i s br ought . ?
2. W t he r t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n gr a nt i ng he s umma r y j udgme nt by i t s r ul i ng t ha t t he one - ye a r s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons ha d r un a s t o Al l s t a t e .
The a ut omobi l e a c c i de nt gi vi ng r i s e t o t hi s c a s e
o c c u r r e d on J une 16, 1993, a nd pl a i nt i f f f i l e d s ui t a ga i ns t
t h e o t he r dr i ve r on J une 2, 1994, wi t h pr oc e s s s e r ve d on t h o s e
d e f e n d a nt s on J une 6, 1994. On Oc t obe r 6, 1994, pl a i nt i f f
o b t a i ne d a n or de r f r om t he Tr i a l J udge f or pr oc e s s t o i s s ue
a n d b e s e r ve d upon Al l s t a t e I ns ur a nc e Compa ny, whi c h pr oc e s s
wa s s e r ve d upon t he De pa r t me nt of Comme r c e a nd I ns ur a nc e on
Oc t o b e r 12, 1994, a nd s u bs e que nt l y f ur ni s he d t o Al l s t a t e by
t h e De pa r t me nt . Al l s t a t e move d f or s umma r y j udgme nt on t he
g r o u n d s t ha t pl a i nt i f f h a d f a i l e d t o c ompl y wi t h t he pol i c y
p r o v i s i ons a nd t ha t t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons ha d r un on a n
a c t i on a ga i ns t i t .
The pe r t i ne nt pol i c y pr ovi s i on i s :
A pe r s on s e e ki ng uni ns ur e d mot or i s t c ove r a ge mus t a l s o: . . . 2. Pr ompt l y s e nd us c opi e s of t he l e g a l pa pe r s , i f a s ui t i s br ought .
Th e r e c or d r e ve a l s t ha t t he i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny wa s f i r s t
f u r n i s he d c opi e s of t he s ui t pa pe r s by t he St a t e of
Te n n e s s e e ’ s De pa r t me nt of I ns ur a nc e . I n r e s pons e t o t he
mo t i o n f or s umma r y j udgme nt , t he pl a i nt i f f f i l e d he r a f f i da v i t
wh i c h s t a t e s :
Ve r y s hor t l y a f t e r my a c c i de nt whi c h oc c ur r e d on J une 16, 1993 , I a dvi s e d my i ns ur a nc e a ge nt , Howa r d Ya t e s , a ge nt f or Al l s t a t e I ns ur a nc e Compa ny, a nd c ompl i e d wi t h e ve r y r e que s t ma de by Al l s t a t e I ns ur a nc e Compa ny. I n a ddi t i on, t he i ns ur a nc e
2 c a r r i e r p a i d me di c a l e xpe ns e s on my be ha l f i nc i de nt t o t he a c c i de nt . Af t e r s ui t wa s f i l e d a nd s e r vi c e wa s ha d on t he De f e nda nt s , I wa s a dvi s e d by my a t t or ne y t ha t a ppa r e nt l y t he De f e nda nt s ’ Va nc e ha d no i ns ur a nc e a nd upon t he a dvi s e [ s i c ] of my a t t or ne y Al l s t a t e I ns ur a nc e Compa ny wa s ma de a pa r t y t o my c a s e .
Pl a i nt i f f of f e r s no e xc us e f or f a i l ur e t o s e nd
c o p i e s of t he s ui t pa pe r s t o he r i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny, a nd on
a p p e a l , a r gue s t ha t s i nc e no pr e j udi c e ha s be e n de mons t r a t e b y
t h e i n s ur a nc e c ompa ny, t ha t c ove r a ge s houl d be a f f or de d.
Thi s j ur i s di c t i on ha s l ong he l d t ha t c ondi t i ons t o
b e p e r f or me d by t he i ns ur e d a r e c ondi t i ons pr e c e de nt t o
a c t i v a t i ng c ove r a ge und e r t he pol i c y. Se e , e . g . , Har t f or d
Ac c i d e nt and I nde mni t y Co. , v . Cr e as y , 530 S. W 2d 778 ( Te nn . .
1975) . Thi s r ul e ha s b e e n a ppl i e d t o va r i ous c ondi t i ons i n
p o l i c i e s of i ns ur a nc e , a nd our c our t s ha ve uni f or ml y he l d t h a t
t h e l a c k of pr e j udi c e o n t he f a i l ur e t o c ompl y wi t h t he pol i c y
p r o v i s i on i s not gr ound s t o e xc us e non- c ompl i a nc e wi t h t he
p o l i c y pr ovi s i on. Thi s Cour t ha s c r i t i c i z e d t hi s r ul e . Se e
No r t h Ri v e r I ns . Co. , v . J ohns on, 757 S. W 2d 334 ( Te nn. App. .
1 9 8 8 ) . Thi s Cour t ha d o c c a s i on t o c ons i de r t he c ondi t i on
c o n t a i ne d i n t hi s pol i c y i n Whal e y v . Unde r wood , 922 S. W 2d .
1 1 0 ( Te nn. App. 1995) , whe r e t he de l a y i n f ur ni s hi ng c opi e s o f
t he ?l e ga l pa pe r s ? wa s de l a ye d s ome 27 mont hs . Aga i n, t he
Co u r t a ppl i e d t he r ul e a s r e qui r e d unde r t he hol di ngs of t h e
Te n n e s s e e Supr e me Cour t . As t he Whal e y c our t not e d, we ha v e
a d o p t e d t he de f i ni t i on of ‘ pr ompt ’ a s di s c us s e d i n 44
Am. J u r . 2d I ns ur a nc e 1330, whi c h s i mpl y me a ns t ha t ?not i c e mu s t
b e g i ve n wi t hi n a r e a s o na bl e t i me unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s o f
t he c a s e . ? W t h no ot he r c i r c ums t a nc e s a ppe a r i ng i n t he c a s e i
b e f o r e us , i t c a nnot be s a i d t ha t a de l a y of 4- 1/ 2 mont hs i n
3 f u r n i s hi ng t he l e ga l pa p e r s i s pr ompt . Ac c or di ngl y, we a r e
c o n s t r a i ne d t o a f f i r m t he Tr i a l J udge ’ s gr a nt of s umma r y
j u d g me nt upon t he f a i l ur e of t he pl a i nt i f f t o c ompl y wi t h t h e
t e r ms of he r pol i c y wi t h t he de f e nda nt i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny.
W f i nd i t unne c e s s a r y t o a ddr e s s t he r e ma i ni ng e
i s s u e s , s i nc e t hi s i s s ue i s de t e r mi na t i ve of t he a ppe a l .
The j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t i s a f f i r me d, a nd t h e
c a us e r e ma nde d wi t h c os t s of t he a ppe a l a s s e s s e d t o t he
a pp e l l a nt .
________________________ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ ___________________ ___ Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, P. J . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ ___ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J .
4 5 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
THELM W KELLEY, A . ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9701- CV- 00031 ) Appe l l a nt , ) SEVI ER CI RCUI T ) v. ) ) J OHN E. VANCE a nd ) BETTY L. VANCE, ) ) De f e nda nt s , ) ) a nd ) ) ALLSTATE I NSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appe l l e e . )
O R D E R
Thi s c a us e wa s r e gul a r l y he a r d a nd c ons i de r e d by t h e
c our t . I T I S NOW ORDERED t ha t t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Co u r t
i s a f f i r me d, a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d. The c os t s of a ppe a l a r e
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thelma W. Kelley v. John E. Vance and Betty L. Vance, and Allstate Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thelma-w-kelley-v-john-e-vance-and-betty-l-vance-a-tennctapp-1997.