IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 4, 2013 Session

STANLEY DENNIS WATERS ET AL. v. BENNY JOE PENDERGRASS ET AL.

1

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradley County

No. V-10-560 Lawrence H. Puckett, Judge

No. E2013-00431-COA-R3-CV-FILED-SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Stanley Dennis Waters (“the plaintiff”), a detective with the Polk County Sheriff’s

2

Department, was seriously injured when the Polk County vehicle in which he was riding as

a passenger was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by one of the two named defendants

and driven by the other named defendant (collectively “the Named Defendants”). The

plaintiff’s vehicle was being driven by the Sheriff of Polk County. The plaintiff and his wife

sued the Named Defendants. Process and a copy of the complaint were served upon two

3

unnamed parties, Tennessee Risk Management Trust (“TRMT”) and Markel Corporation

4

(collectively “the Unnamed Parties”). The suit against the Named Defendants was settled

for the full amount of the liability limits of their respective casualty insurance policies. The

plaintiffs seek to recover uninsured motorist benefits from the Unnamed Parties. The

5

plaintiffs and the Unnamed Parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court

granted the motion of the Unnamed Parties and denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs

appeal. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed; Case Remanded

Mr. Pendergrass and Sam Allen, the Named Defendants, are no longer parties to this case. 1

Carolyn Waters, the wife of the plaintiff Stanley Dennis Waters, is also a plaintiff. Her suit is a

2

derivative one. When we refer to the plaintiff in the singular, we are referring to Mr. Waters.

Two other unnamed insurance companies were also served with process and a copy of the amended 3

complaint. Both were dismissed from this suit because each policy had uninsured limits that were less than

the amount of the plaintiffs’ settlement with the Named Defendants.

In the record, this entity is variously referred to as “Markel,” “Markel Ins. Co.,” or “Markel 4

Corporation.” We are unsure as to the correct name, We have decided to refer to it as “Markel Corporation.”

As used in this opinion, the word “uninsured” includes “underinsured” coverage. 5
CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. MICHAEL

SWINEY and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ., joined.

Joshua H. Jenne, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellants, Stanley Dennis Waters and wife,

Carolyn Waters.

W. Carl Spining and T. William A. Caldwell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees,

Tennessee Risk Management Trust and Markel Corporation.

OPINION

The parties stipulated to certain facts. The relevant portion of those facts, as pertains

to the issue before us, is as set forth below:

* * *

On [August 4, 2009], the Polk County Government insured the

vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger pursuant to the terms

of the “Coverage Document”. . . .

* * *

The losses and damages to Plaintiffs far exceed the $150,000 in

underlying third party liability coverage obtained from the

named defendants and therefore Plaintiffs have not been made

whole.

Pursuant to the aforementioned “Coverage Document,” [TRMT]

has already paid certain amounts to Mr. Waters, as well as on his

behalf, in worker’s compensation benefits. These amounts far

exceed the $150,000 in underlying third party liability coverage

obtained from the named defendants.

The Certificate of Liability Insurance and/or Declarations Page

regarding the “Coverage Document” provide[s] for $1 million

in liability coverage and $1 million in uninsured/underinsured

motorist coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident in

question.

-2-
The Certificate of Liability Insurance and/or Declarations Page

issued to Polk County is a “combination of self-insured retention

and excess insurance provided by Markel [Corporation],” [an

Unnamed Party].

(References to the record and paragraph numbering in original omitted.) Furthermore, the

record before us reflects that the named “member” on the Certificate of Liability Insurance

is Polk County Government. The insurance provided by TRMT includes uninsured motorist

coverage. The insurance policy before us, however, does not extend uninsured coverage to

employees of Polk County.

The plaintiffs take the position that the TRMT is subject to the uninsured motorist

coverage requirements of the Code, and, hence, required to make such coverage available to

the plaintiffs. The trial court held that the TRMT is not subject to those requirements. That

is the dispositive issue on this appeal.

This case was argued before us on November 4, 2013. At that time, we were aware

that the Supreme Court had granted permission to appeal in a similar case from our Court.

See Harris v. Haynes, E2012-02213-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3486835 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S.,

filed July 10, 2013). We decided to hold this case in abeyance because the precise

dispositive issue in this case was also present in the Harris case, i.e.,

whether a governmental fund established in accordance with

Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-20-401 to -408 (2012),

which allows governmental entities to pool resources in order to

addressliabilities created under the Governmental Tort Liability

Act, is subject to the uninsured motorist coverage requirements

of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 56-7-1201 to -1206

(2008).

(Supreme Court opinion in Harris v. Haynes, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. E2012-02213-SC-R11-

CV, 2014 WL 4197931 at *1.) On August 26, 2014, the Supreme Court released its opinion

in Harris. The Supreme Court held as follows:

We hold that a governmental fund established in accordance

with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-20-401 to -408, is

exempt from the requirements of Tennessee’s insurance statutes

and therefore need not comply with the requirements of the

uninsured motorist statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section

56-7-1201. Because the Coverage Document TRMT issued to

-3-
Anderson County specifically excluded employees and those

who receive workers’ compensation benefits from uninsured

motorist coverage and TRMT is not otherwise required to offer

such coverage, Plaintiffs may not recover from TRMT.

Id. at *5.

The Supreme Court’s holding in Harris is a complete answer to the dispositive issue

present in the case before us. As in Harris, there is no uninsured coverage available to the

plaintiffs under the Coverage Document. Furthermore, TRMT “is not otherwise required to

offer such coverage.” Id.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to appellants

Stanley Dennis Waters and Carolyn Waters. This case is remanded to the trial court,

pursuant to applicable law, for collection of costs assessed by the trial court.

_____________________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

-4-