Title: Allstate Ins. Co. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM.

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

483 S.W.2d 719 (1972) ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. August 7, 1972. Francis A. Cain, William N. Groover, Cheek, Taylor & Groover, Knoxville, for appellant. Joe A. Tilson, Morristown, for appellee. DYER, Chief Justice. This case presents a contest between two liability insurance carriers as to which carrier is liable for all or what part of a loss arising from a vehicle accident. This case in the trial court was disposed of by final judgment on motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, effective January 1, 1971. Appeal was had direct to this Court, raising the issue, first to to be considered, of whether the appeal in this case was properly in this Court or should the appeal have been to the Court of Appeals. By the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a number of material changes were made in pleading, but probably the most far-reaching departure from the past was in the adoption of Rule 56, allowing cases to be disposed of on motion for summary judgment. Prior to the adoption of these Rules in Tennessee summary judgment was known only in connection with summary remedies against certain public officers. T.C.A. § 25-301 et seq. Rule 56 of our Rules of Civil Procedure is modeled after Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, having similar language and essentially seeking the same purpose and effect. The purpose of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been declared to be: Under the Federal system there is no problem of appeal from a final judgment on a motion for summary judgment as all appeals go to the appropriate Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In Tennessee, unlike the Federal system, an appeal from the trial court in a civil action is jurisdictionally limited to either this Court or the Court of Appeals, and where the appeal from the trial court is to the Court of Appeals, this Court has no jurisdiction at that time to hear the case. T.C.A. § 16-408 denotes the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, which statute reads as follows: Rule 56.03 requires a trial judge to render judgment on a motion for summary judgment if: On motion for summary judgment the trial judge's determination of whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact when done so upon the record as a whole, and such record contains evidentiary matters, such as depositions, affidavits or exhibits, is a review or determination of facts and an appeal from a final judgment so entered is properly in the Court of Appeals. The result we reach is supported by the fact the Court of Appeals could, in reviewing the same facts, arrive at a different conclusion on the issue of whether there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. *721 In the case, sub judice, the part of the trial judge's finding pertinent to the issue here, is as follows: It is apparent from the trial judge's findings he considered evidentiary matters in determining the issue of whether there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. In urging this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal, the case of Marler v. Claunch, 221 Tenn. 693, 430 S.W.2d 452 (1960) is cited. The Marler case came directly to this Court, the trial court having heard the case on stipulation of facts. The ultimate facts being stipulated, the case was heard by "a method not involving a review or determination of the facts." This case is not in point on the issue in the case sub judice. The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeals. CHATTIN and McCANLESS, JJ., and JENKINS, Special Judge, concur. CRESON, J., not participating.