Kimberly Medders v. Landon Newby, M2020-01094-COA-R3-CV

Background

On July 11, 2016 Kimberly Medders was injured in an automobile collision with Landon Newby while driving a 2013 Volkswagen Jetta. The Newbys were uninsured. Medders sued the Newbys and served her insurer, Direct Insurance, seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage.
Medders had a non-owner auto policy with Direct. Samuel Tinnin (her fiancé) purchased the Jetta from his employer/ dealership on June 24, 2016; title was issued in his name on July 12, 2016 (one day after the accident). Tinnin testified he bought the car for Medders’ personal use; at trial he later gave inconsistent testimony.
Tinnin had an owner’s policy with Direct but did not add the Jetta to his declarations. Direct denied UM coverage under both Medders’ non-owner policy and Tinnin’s owner policy.
The trial court granted Direct’s motion to bifurcate coverage from liability and held a bench trial on coverage, finding the Jetta was furnished and available for Medders’ regular use and therefore excluded from her non-owner policy; it also found the Jetta was not covered under Tinnin’s policy. The court denied Medders’ motion to alter or amend.
On appeal Medders argued (1) she was denied a jury trial on coverage by bifurcation, (2) her non-owner policy should cover the accident, and (3) the court erred in denying her post-remand motion to amend her complaint to demand a jury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Medders had a right to a jury trial on coverage / whether bifurcation was improper	Medders argued constitutional right to jury on factual issues including coverage; bifurcation denied that right	Direct argued Medders waived a jury demand (no timely demand under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 38) and bifurcation was justified to avoid prejudice (Evid. R. 411) and juror confusion	Court: Medders waived jury demand; trial court did not abuse discretion in bifurcating coverage from liability; bench trial on coverage was proper
Whether Medders’ non-owner policy afforded UM coverage for the accident (i.e., whether the Jetta was "non-owned")	Medders argued the Jetta was not owned by her and was not furnished/available for her regular use, so her non-owner policy should cover the accident	Direct argued evidence (including Tinnin’s credible deposition testimony) showed Tinnin purchased the Jetta for Medders and it was furnished/available for her regular use, which excludes it from the non-owner definition; also policy definitions required listing or timely adding as a newly acquired/covered auto	Court: Affirmed — based on policy language and trial-court credibility findings, the Jetta was furnished/available for Medders’ regular use and thus not a covered non-owned auto; no UM coverage under Medders’ policy (and Tinnin’s policy likewise did not cover the Jetta)
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying Medders’ post-remand motion to amend to add a jury demand	Medders sought leave to amend under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15 to add a jury demand after remand	Direct argued the amendment was untimely, would cause undue delay, and would prejudice Direct after the coverage trial and judgment	Court: Denial affirmed — allowance would be untimely and highly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Ennix v. Clay, 703 S.W.2d 137 (Tenn. 1986) (framework for when bifurcation of issues is permissible and the limited circumstances warranting separation)
Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494 (1931) (principle that issues must be distinct and separable to justify separate trials)
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing trial-court procedural rulings)
Garrison v. Bickford, 377 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2012) (rules of contract/insurance-policy interpretation; ambiguities resolved in favor of insured)
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Chester-O’Donley & Assocs., 972 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (policy construed as a whole; plain and ordinary meaning controls)