Craig Dillon v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, E2016-01080-COA-R3-CV

Dillon purchased a vacant, previously fire-damaged house to renovate and obtained a personal fire and extended coverage policy that included Vandalism or Malicious Mischief coverage.
Burglars broke into the house and detached garage, damaged doors and drywall, removed most internal and some underground copper wiring, and damaged electrical/junction boxes.
Dillon submitted estimates for repairs and rewiring; Tennessee Farmers tendered $6,465.30 as payment it believed covered vandalism-related damage and denied coverage for theft.
Dillon obtained a judgment in General Sessions; Tennessee Farmers appealed to Circuit Court, which held most loss was excluded as theft and awarded only the prior tender less deductible.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals the key dispute was whether the policy’s Vandalism or Malicious Mischief clause covers building damage caused by burglars even if burglars stole property (copper wire).
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s exclusionary ruling, holding building damage caused by burglars is covered (wire value is not), and remanded for recalculation of damages because the insurer’s tender did not specify what it covered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether policy’s Vandalism or Malicious Mischief coverage excludes damage caused by burglars when theft occurred	Dillon: plain policy language covers "damage to the covered building which is caused by burglars" — so repair costs are covered though stolen wire value is not	Tenn. Farmers: loss resulted from theft/burglary (the taking of copper) and is excluded; its prior tender satisfied coverage for vandalism	Court: overturned trial court — damage to building caused by burglars is covered; copper itself (theft) is not recoverable; remand to determine amount of covered damages

Garrison v. Bickford, 377 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2012) (contract interpretation principles govern insurance coverage)
Clark v. Sputniks, LLC, 368 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2012) (same)
Maggart v. Almany Realtors, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 700 (Tenn. 2008) (cardinal rule: ascertain parties’ intent; unambiguous language controls)
Fisher v. Revell, 343 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (insurance-contract construction follows general contract rules)
Philips v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 146 S.W.3d 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (contract-construction authority cited)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. 2006) (court reviews contract interpretation de novo)
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Chester-O’Donley & Assoc., Inc., 972 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (ambiguous policy language construed against insurer)