Jerry GARRISON et al. v. Rita BICKFORD et al.
Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville.
May 8, 2012 Session. Aug. 22, 2012.
377 S.W.3d 659
Joseph B. Klockenkemper, II, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
OPINION
CORNELIA A. CLARK, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JANICE M. HOLDER, GARY R. WADE, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined.
Factual and Procedural History
On June 9, 2006, a car driven by Andy Bickford struck and killed eighteen-year-old Michael Garrison, who was riding a minibike on a road near his home. Garrison‘s parents, Jerry and Martha Garrison,1 and younger brother, Daniel Garrison, heard, but did not see, the collision. Jerry and Daniel Garrison, the first people to arrive at the scene, observed the deceased‘s injuries. Mr. Garrison testified that the deceased was “barely breathing [and] blood [was] flowing everywhere.” Mr. Garrison waited with his critically injured son more than an hour for an ambulance to arrive. Mrs. Garrison testified that when she arrived at the scene a crowd had already gathered and she “was screaming for [Michael], to tell him I was there. I just was calling to him the whole time ... telling him that I was there and to hang on.” The young man was airlifted to a hospital in Chattanooga where he died from his injuries.
The Garrisons filed claims for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Andy Bickford and the owner of the car, Rita Bickford. The complaint, along with an amended complaint, alleged that Andy Bickford was intoxicated, speeding, and traveling in the wrong lane at the time of the accident. The suit further alleged that he did not immediately stop following the collision, and after stopping his car, he fled the scene. The complaint also alleged that Rita Bickford negligently entrusted her vehicle to Andy Bickford because she was aware of his propensity to drive at excessive speeds, drive recklessly, and operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. According to the complaint, the Garrisons, upon hearing the collision, went to render aid when they saw the deceased‘s “mangled body” face down in a ditch beside the road. As a result of what they saw, the Garrisons “suffered grief, fright, shock, depression, loss of sleep and other problems” for which they sought compensatory damages.
As the litigation progressed, the Garrisons settled their wrongful death claim against Andy Bickford for $25,000, plus $25,000 for the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.4 The Garrisons also settled their wrongful death claim with State Farm for $75,000, which State Farm asserted was the amount remaining under the “Each Person” limit of the policy. However, State Farm refused to pay damages for the Garrisons’ emotional distress claim on the basis that emotional harm was not a “bodily injury” as defined in the policy. State Farm also claimed that because the Garrisons’ emotional distress was caused by their witnessing the deceased‘s injuries, their claims were included in the “Each Person” limit of liability encompassing the deceased‘s injuries. Pursuant to the partial settlement with State Farm, the Garrisons dismissed their wrongful death claim, but continued to press their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, arguing that the policy provided coverage for mental injuries.
State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that mental injuries were not covered under the policy and, in any event, its payment of $75,000 to the Garrisons exhausted the “Each Person” limit of the policy. The trial court denied the motion. State Farm then filed a motion to alter or amend and a supplemental motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied these motions as well, but granted an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In ruling in favor of coverage, the trial court found that the “bodily injury” provision of the uninsured motorist statute,
We granted the Garrisons’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether “bodily injury” as defined in the policy includes mental injuries standing alone. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that it does not.
Analysis
I.
Our analysis of this case is guided by several well-established principles. First, Tennessee law is clear that questions regarding the extent of insurance coverage present issues of law involving the interpretation of contractual language. Clark v. Sputniks, LLC, 368 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Tenn.2012); Maggart v. Almany Realtors, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 700, 703 (Tenn. 2008). Likewise, questions regarding the interpretation of a statute involve issues of law. In re Estate of Trigg, 368 S.W.3d 483, 490 (Tenn.2012). This case involves the construction of both an insurance contract and a statute,
When interpreting a statute, courts “must ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without restricting or expanding the statute‘s intended meaning.” U.S. Bank, 277 S.W.3d at 386. Our task is to examine the text of the statute and, if the language used is unambiguous, we simply apply the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686, 694 (Tenn.2011); U.S. Bank, 277 S.W.3d at 386. As we recently observed, courts “must (1) give these words their natural and ordinary meaning, (2) consider them in the context of the entire statute, and (3) presume that the General Assembly intended to give each of these words its full effect.” In re Estate of Trigg, 368 S.W.3d at 490. Every word in a statute is presumed to have meaning and purpose. Nye, 347 S.W.3d at 694; Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tenn.2009). If, after examining the text of the statute, it becomes clear the statute is ambiguous, “we may reference the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislation, or other sources to discern its meaning.” Highwoods Props., 297 S.W.3d at 701; see also Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362, 368 (Tenn.2012) (“When necessary to resolve a statutory ambiguity or conflict, courts may consider matters beyond the statutory text, including public policy, historical facts relevant to the enactment of the statute, the background and purpose of the statute, and the entire statutory scheme.“). “However, these non-codified external sources cannot provide a basis for departing from clear codified statutory provisions.” Mills, 360 S.W.3d at 368 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Equally well-established is the principle that “[i]nsurance policies are, at
In addition, contracts of insurance are strictly construed in favor of the insured, and if the disputed provision is susceptible to more than one plausible meaning, the meaning favorable to the insured controls. Tata v. Nichols, 848 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Tenn.1993); VanBebber v. Roach, 252 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007). However, a “strained construction may not be placed on the language used to find ambiguity where none exists.” Farmers-Peoples Bank v. Clemmer, 519 S.W.2d 801, 805 (Tenn.1975).
II.
At the outset, it is important to put this appeal in its proper analytical context. First, it is undisputed that the Garrisons, as well as the decedent, were insureds under State Farm‘s policy. Likewise, there is no dispute that Michael Garrison sustained “bodily injury” in the accident resulting in his death. Nor is there any question, for purposes of this appeal, that the Garrisons were entitled to pursue negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Andy Bickford, the driver of the vehicle that struck the deceased. Thus, this is not a case that requires us to address the parameters of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress as we have done a number of times before.5
Rather, the crux of this appeal is whether, as a matter of insurance and contract law, the Garrisons’ mental injuries constitute “bodily injury” under the policy. A related, but separate question, is whether
The Garrisons respond that, according to the policy, the “Each Person” limit of $100,000 applies to “damages resulting from bodily injury to any one insured.” Consequently, they assert that they each have their own $100,000 limit given that they suffered an injury distinct from the deceased‘s injuries. Further, they maintain that the definition of “bodily injury” in the policy is broad enough to encompass emotional harm and, even if it is not, the uninsured motorist statute,
The legislature has established the minimum standard of protection acceptable for uninsured motorist coverage in Tennessee as follows:
Every automobile liability insurance policy delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this state, covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle designed for use primarily on public roads and registered or principally garaged in this state, shall include uninsured motorist coverage, subject to provisions filed with and approved by the commissioner, for the protection of persons insured under the policy who are legally entitled to recover compensatory damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting from injury, sickness or disease.
“The intent and purpose of the Uninsured Motorist Act is to provide protection by making the insurance carrier stand as the insurer of the uninsured motorist.” Stallcup v. Duncan, 684 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984). “Thus, the insured is allowed to purchase uninsured motorist coverage for the protection that he would have had if the alleged tortfeasor had assumed his own financial responsibility by purchasing liability insurance.” Id. In other words, “uninsured motorist insurance does not actually insure the uninsured motorist. It insures the insured and assures him of some recovery when the other parties do not have liability insurance.” Thompson v. Parker, 606 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tenn.Ct.App.1980). In short, the purpose of section 56-7-1201(a) is to protect those who purchase motor vehicle liability insurance from those who do not.
The statutory language at the core of this case is “bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death.”
The Garrisons respond that if the legislature had intended to exclude mental injury claims from the reach of uninsured motorist coverage, it would have omitted “sickness or disease” from section 56-7-1201(a). They further maintain that even if the term “bodily” in the policy is read to modify “sickness, disease, or death,” the word “bodily” in the statute modifies only “injury,” not “sickness or disease.” Consequently, the Garrisons assert that the policy definition of “bodily injury” is more restrictive than the coverage mandated by the uninsured motorist statute. As such, they argue that the language of section 56-7-1201(a) supersedes the policy definition of “bodily injury” and becomes part of the policy.8 See Christenberry v. Tipton, 160 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tenn.2005) (“[I]f the terms of an automobile insurance policy fail to comport with statutory requirements, then the statute takes precedence, supersedes the conflicting policy provisions, and in effect becomes part of the insurance policy itself.“).
Although the meaning of “bodily injury” for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage is an issue of first impression in Tennessee, there has been no shortage of litigation in other jurisdictions addressing this issue. The majority of courts facing the question in various contexts have concluded that “bodily injury” does not in-
The Washington Supreme Court‘s decision in Daley is representative of many of the cases adopting the majority view. In Daley, the insured sought to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from his witnessing another person‘s fatal injuries. 958 P.2d at 991-92. The insured‘s uninsured motorist policy defined “bodily injury” as “bodily injury, sickness, disease or death.” Id. at 993. In concluding that the insured was not entitled to recover for emotional distress unrelated to a physical injury, the Washington court observed that the “clear majority of states ... have held that the term ‘bodily injury’ does not include damages for purely emotional injuries.” Id. at 993-94. The court explained that “in the context of purely emotional injuries, without physical manifestations, the phrase ‘bodily injury’ is not ambiguous. Its ordinary meaning connotes a physical problem.” Id. at 994 (quoting SL Indus., Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 188, 607 A.2d 1266, 1274 (1992)). The court further observed that in interpreting the common policy definition of “bodily injury” as “bodily injury, sickness, or disease,” courts have found that the word “bodily” modifies the terms “sickness or disease,” so that the policy “would then read ‘bodily injury, bodily sickness, [or] bodily disease.‘” Id. at 995. Following this line of analysis, the “overwhelming majority of courts interpret the phrase ‘bodily injury’ to include claims for physical injury and to exclude claims for purely nonphysical or emotional harm.” Id. at 994.
Similarly, in Johnson v. American Family Insurance, 160 Ohio App.3d 392, 827 N.E.2d 403, 404 (2005), an insured sought compensation from her uninsured motorist carrier for emotional distress stemming from the death of her sister in a car accident. Noting that the policy defined “bodily injury” as “bodily injury to or sickness, disease or death of any person,” the Ohio court observed that “bodily injury” is “commonly and ordinarily used to designate an injury caused by external vio-
While some cases, such as Daley, find no coverage on the basis that the term “bodily” modifies or restricts the words that follow, namely “sickness or disease“, other cases place no significance on which words “bodily” modifies because “[n]either sickness nor disease arguably includes emotional distress.” David, 665 N.E.2d at 1173. Therefore, “whether the word ‘bodily’ modifies ‘sickness’ or ‘disease’ is irrelevant.” Id. Or, as one court has observed, “[t]hese words cannot fairly be said to have misled anyone,” and they “need no explanation.” Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 260 S.E.2d at 862.
Still other cases focus on typical dictionary definitions to find the meaning of “bodily injury.” For instance, in concluding that “the common meaning of the phrase ‘bodily harm, sickness or disease’ as used to define ‘bodily injury’ is not ambiguous,” Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 962 S.W.2d at 454, one court has observed that “[i]n dictionary definitions, ‘bodily’ is equated with ‘physical’ as contrasted with ‘mental.‘” Id. at 453. Thus, “‘bodily injury’ refers to physical conditions of the body and excludes mental suffering or emotional distress.” Id. at 454. Moreover, “in insurance law ‘bodily injury’ is considered to be a narrower concept than ‘personal injury’ which covers mental or emotional injury.” Id. at 453.
As this discussion illustrates, most courts “conclusively exclud[e] emotional distress from the insurance definition [of] ‘bodily injury, sickness or disease.‘” David, 665 N.E.2d at 1173. While these cases represent the clear majority view, other cases considering the issue have been decided in favor of coverage. For example, in Evans v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 34 P.3d 284, 286-87 (Wyo.2001), the parents of a child seriously injured in an accident sought to recover damages for their emotional distress under the uninsured motorist provisions of their policy, which defined “bodily injury” as “bodily harm to or sickness, disease or death of any person.” The insurer agreed that the parents suffered emotional harm in witnessing their child‘s accident, but refused to cover purely emotional injury unaccompanied by any kind of physical harm. Id. at 284-85. While acknowledging that “[a] common sense reading of the term ‘bodily injury,’ without more, may indeed connote physical harm rather than emotional harm,” id. at 286, the Wyoming court concluded that “bodily injury” did not modify the terms “sickness” or “disease,” and emotional injuries were neither expressly included or excluded from commonly understood definitions of those words. Id. at 287. The court thus resolved this “ambiguity” in favor of coverage. Id.
Similarly, in Ryder v. USAA General Indemnity Co., 938 A.2d 4, 5 (Me.2007), the mother of a young child sought to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress after witnessing the child being fatally struck by a car. The mother sought to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of her policy, which defined “bodily injury” as “bodily harm, sickness, disease or death.” Id. at 6. Maine‘s high court noted that most jurisdictions considering the matter have held that the phrase “bodily injury, when either unde-
III.
After considering the approaches of other jurisdictions, we are persuaded that the phrase “bodily injury,” as used in both section 56-7-1201(a) and the policy before us, does not include damages for a mental or emotional injury by itself. The commonly understood meaning of the words “bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease, or death that results from it” as used in the policy, or the words “bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death” as used in the statute, are unambiguous.10 These words, when used to define “bodily injury,” refer to physical, not emotional, conditions of the body. See Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 245 (3d ed. 1976) (equating “bodily” with “physical,” as “contrast[ed] with mental“); Black‘s Law Dictionary 801 (8th ed.2004) (defining “bodily injury” as “[p]hysical damage to a person‘s body“). Policy language may not be construed to include different coverage, namely damages for emotional harm standing alone, when the plain and ordinary terms used indicate otherwise. Stated differently, we “cannot under the guise of construction make a new and different contract for the parties,” Memphis Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Am. Cas. Co., 480 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tenn.1972), and a “strained construction may not be placed on the language used to find ambiguity where none exists,” Farmers-Peoples Bank, 519 S.W.2d at 805. Simply put, the parties’ policy must be enforced as written.
The result we have reached in this case is also consistent with the nature of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress itself. At one time, some form of physical harm was required to successfully pursue such a claim. See Camper, 915 S.W.2d at 443-46. That is no longer the case, however, as emotional harm alone forms the basis of the tort, apart from a claim for personal injury. See Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521, 530 (Tenn.2008).11 Indeed, it is now generally accepted that “[e]motional harm is distinct from bodily harm and means harm to a person‘s emotional tranquility.” See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 4 cmt. a (2010). On the other hand, physical or bodily harm “means the physical impairment of the human body,” namely, “physical injury, illness, disease, impairment of bodily function, and death.” Id. at § 4.
In sum, a bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, such as that asserted by the Garrisons, is not a claim for bodily harm. Accordingly, we conclude that in the context of purely emotional injuries, the phrase “bodily injury,” as defined in the policy before us, is unambiguous. Its ordinary meaning connotes a physical injury. Thus, we hold that, as applied to this case, “bodily injury” does not include damages for emotional harm alone. We further conclude that the definition of “bodily injury” in the policy does not conflict with the uninsured motorist statute,
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are taxed to the Garrisons and their surety, for which execution may issue if necessary.