Randall D. Kiser v. Ian J. Wolfe
353 S.W.3d 741
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff was seriously injured driving Lawson Towing Service’s tow truck and sued Wolfe and Consumers, Lawson’s insurer, seeking UM coverage up to Lawson’s liability limit of $1,000,000.
- Consumers sought partial summary judgment to limit UM coverage to $60,000 per the first page of the application, claiming Lawson had elected lower UM limits.
- The trial court denied Consumers’ motion; the Court of Appeals reversed and granted partial summary judgment in Consumers’ favor.
- The three-page application listed $1,000,000 liability and $60,000 UM on the first page; Lawson signed the third page but did not initial any options on that page.
- The trial court found the application insufficient to show an express written rejection or selection of UM limits lower than liability; the appellate court considered all three pages of the application in determining the written form requirement.
- Court granted review to determine whether signing an application with an unelaborated rejection/selection on the third page satisfies the statutory written form requirement under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a signature on an insurance application, with an incomplete section for UM options, satisfies the 'in writing' requirement. | Kiser argues the signed, three-page application shows UM limits were lower than liability. | Consumers contends the signed page but uncompleted UM option section is insufficient to bind lower UM limits. | Yes; the writing requirement is met by the signed application reflecting lower UM limits. |
| Whether the three-page application should be read as a single integrated document or as separate pages, for purposes of the contract interpretation. | Kiser asserts four-corners interpretation limits consideration to the signed page only. | Consumers argues the three-page application, together, shows the insured agreed to lower UM limits. | The application as a whole constitutes the contract; all three pages were properly before the court. |
| What is the proper statutory interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(a)(2) regarding written rejection or lowering of UM limits? | Kiser contends the statute requires a clearer express rejection/selection in writing. | Consumers maintains signature on the document suffices to show written rejection/selection. | The statute requires a written rejection or written selection; signature on the form suffices when the form clearly shows the chosen UM limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. Hackett, 833 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (amendment requiring 'in writing' rejection of UM coverage)
- Giles v. Allstate Ins. Co., 871 S.W.2d 154 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993) (insured presumed to know policy contents; signing suffices in absence of fraud)
- Tata v. Nichols, 848 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn.1993) (UM statute designed to provide recompense within fixed limits; writing requirement interpreted to bind upon signing)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991) (ambiguous policy provisions construed against drafter; emphasis on intent and writing)