Southern Trust Insurance Company v. Matthew Phillips, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457

Phillips owned vacant residential property in Lake City, Tennessee insured under Southern Trust's dwelling policy.
Fire on February 27, 2013 substantially damaged the dwelling; Phillips notified the insurer per policy duties.
Southern Trust denied coverage, claiming the loss resulted from arson and fell within a vacancy exclusion for vandalism and malicious mischief.
Policy excluded vandalism and malicious mischief, theft or attempted theft if the dwelling was vacant for more than 30 days; arson not defined.
Phillips sought declaratory relief and partial summary judgment arguing arson is not vandalism/malicious mischief and that coverage for fire/arson exists.
The trial court found the policy ambiguous, construed it in Phillips’s favor, and granted Phillips’s partial summary judgment; Southern Trust appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy ambiguity was in error.	Phillips	Southern Trust	Ambiguity affirmed; policy construed in insured's favor
Whether the vacancy exclusion for vandalism/malicious mischief applies to arson in this policy.	Phillips	Southern Trust	Arson not within vandalism/malicious mischief exclusion

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tarrant, 363 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2012) (insurance terms interpreted as contracts; ordinary meaning; strict construction in favor of insured)
Garrison v. Bickford, 377 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2012) (interpretation of contractual language; de novo review standard)
Maggart v. Almany Realtors, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 700 (Tenn. 2008) (read the policy as a whole; ordinary meaning; give effect to all provisions)
Planters Gin Co. v. Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co., 78 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. 2002) (contract interpretation; words in context and overall agreement)
Clark v. Sputniks, LLC, 368 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2012) (contract interpretation standards; ordinary meaning of terms)