1

FILED

October 1, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WENDY SETTERS, i ndi vi dua l l y a nd ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9605- CV- 00161

a s t he pa r e nt of t he mi nor s , ) Mc MI NN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT

Me l a ni e Ann Se t t e r s and )

Ni c ol e Kr ys t a l Se t t e r s , )

 )

Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt, )

 )

 )

 )

v. )

 )

 )

 )

PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE )

CORPORATI ON, )

 )

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee, )

 )

a nd )

 )

 )

WI LLI AM B. SETTERS, )

 ) HONORABLE J OHN B. HAGLER, J R. ,

De f e nda nt . ) J UDGE

For Appe l l a nt For Appe l l e e

E. L. PARKER, I I I J ERRY M. MARTI N

Et owa h, Te nne s s e e Knoxvi l l e , Te nne s s e e

O P I N I O N

AFFI RMED AND REMANDED Sus a no, J .
2

Thi s i s a de c l a r a t or y j udgme nt a c t i on. I n t he

c ompl a i nt , We ndy Se t t e r s ( Mr s . Se t t e r s ) s eeks a decl a r a t i on t ha t

a n e xc l us i on i n he r a ut omobi l e i ns ur a nc e pol i c y i s i nva l i d a s

a ga i ns t public polic y; a nd, a lte r na tive l y, tha t the e xc l us i on,

due t o a n a mbi gui t y i n t he i ns ur a nc e pol i c y, i s une nf or c e a bl e

a ga i ns t he r . The s ubj e c t pr ovi s i on e xc l ude s t he e xt e ns i on of

l i a bi l i t y c ove r a ge t o a n i ns ur e d whe n t ha t pe r s on’ s ne gl i ge nc e

c a us e s i nj ur y t o a f a mi l y me mbe r . Re l yi ng on t hi s e xc l us i on, t he

de f e nda nt , Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l As s ur a nce Cor por a t i on ( Pe r ma ne nt

Ge ne r a l ) , de ni e d cove r a ge wi t h r e s pect t o cl a i ms as s e r t e d by Mr s .

Se t t e r s i ndi vi dua l l y a nd on be ha l f of he r c hi l dr e n a r i s i ng s ol e l y

out of i nj ur i e s s us t a i ne d by t he c hi l dr e n i n a n a ut omobi l e

acci de nt . The acci de nt wa s caus e d, i n pa r t , by t he ne gl i ge nt

dr i vi ng of he r hus ba nd. The t r i a l c our t gr a nt e d Pe r ma ne nt

Ge ne r a l ’ s mot i on f or j udgme nt on t he pl e a di ngs , f i ndi ng t he

e xc l us i on t o be “ va l i d, e nf or c e a bl e a nd not vi ol a t i ve of t he

publ i c pol i c y” of Te nne s s e e . Pl a i nt i f f a ppe a l s , r a i s i ng t wo

i s s ue s t ha t pr e s e nt t he f ol l owi ng que s t i ons :

1. I s a pr ovi s i on i n a n a ut omobi l e i ns ur a nc e

pol i c y e xc l udi ng c ove r a ge f or l i a bi l i t y t o a

“ f a mi l y me mbe r ” vi ol a t i ve of t he publ i c

pol i c y of Te nne s s e e ?

2. I s t he l i a bi l i t y c ove r a ge i n t he s ubj e c t

pol i c y a mbi guous s o a s t o wa r r a nt a s t r i c t

c ons t r uc t i on a ga i ns t Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l ?
3

I

Our r e vi e w i n t hi s c a s e i s gove r ne d by we l l - e s t a bl i s he d

r ul e s :

[ W] e ar e bound t o t r eat as f a l s e al l

a l l e ga t i ons of . . . t he movi ng pa r t y, whi c h a r e

de ni e d, and as t r ue al l we l l - pl eade d

a l l e ga t i ons c ont a i ne d i n t he pl e a di ngs

of . . . t he oppone nt of t he mot i on. Se e Tr i gg

v . Mi ddl e Te nn. El ec. Me mbe r s hi p Cor p. , 533

S. W. 2d 730, 732- 33 ( Te nn. App. 1975) . I n

ot he r wor ds , on a n a ppe a l f r om a n or de r

a l l owi ng a j udgme nt on t he pl e a di ngs . . . a l l

we l l - pl eade d f act s and al l r eas ona bl e

i nf e r e nces dr a wn t he r e f r om mus t be accept e d

a s t r ue . Tr i gg a t 733 ( c i t i ng Dar wi n v . Town

of Cooke v i l l e , 170 Te nn. 508, 97 S. W. 2d 838

( 1936) ; Rodge r s v . Rodge r s , 53 Te nn. 489

( 1871) ) . Conc l us i ons of l a w a r e not a dmi t t e d

nor s houl d j udgme nt on t he pl e a di ngs be

gr a nt e d unl e s s t he movi ng pa r t y i s c l e a r l y

e nt i t l e d to judgme nt. Tr i gg a t 733.

McCl e nahan v . Cool e y , 806 S. W. 2d 767, 769 ( Te nn. 1991) . Thus , i n

t he i ns t a nt cas e we accept as t r ue al l we l l - pl eade d f act s i n t he

c ompl a i nt . We mus t t he n de t e r mi ne whe t he r , on t he f a c e of t ha t

pl e a di ng, the pl a i ntif f is e ntitle d to move f or wa r d. Aga i ns t

t hi s ba c kgr ound, we be gi n our a na l ys i s .

I I

Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l i s s ue d t o Mr s . Se t t e r s and he r

hus ba nd, Wi l l i a m Se t t e r s , a n a ut omobi l e i ns ur a nc e pol i c y. The

pol i c y i nc l ude s l i a bi l i t y i ns ur a nc e c ove r a ge f or “ ‘ bodi l y i nj ur y’
4

or ‘ pr ope r t y da ma ge ’ f or whi c h a ny ‘ i ns ur e d’ be c ome s l e ga l l y

r e s pons i bl e . ” The pol i c y de f i ne s “ i ns ur e d” i n pa r t a s “ you or

a ny ‘ f a mi l y me mbe r . ’ ” I t f ur t he r pr ovi de s t ha t Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l

ha s “ no dut y t o de f e nd a ny s ui t or s e t t l e a ny c l a i m f or ‘ bodi l y

i nj ur y’ or ‘ pr ope r t y da ma ge ’ not c ove r e d unde r t hi s pol i c y. ” The

pol i c y c ont a i ns a numbe r of e xc l us i ons . One of t he s e e xc l us i ons

i s s t a t e d a s f ollows :

A. We do not pr ovi de Li a bi l i t y Cove r a ge

f or a ny pe r s on:

* * *

10. For bodi l y i nj ur y t o you or a ny “ f a mi l y

membe r . ”

The t e r m “f a mi l y me mbe r ” i s de f i ne d i n t he pol i c y as

a pe r s on r e l a t e d t o you by bl ood, ma r r i a ge or

a dopt i on who i s a r e s i de nt of your hous e hol d.

Thi s i nc l ude s a wa r d or f os t e r c hi l d.

Soon a f t e r the polic y we nt int o e f f e c t, Mr . Se tte r s wa s

dr i vi ng a n a ut omobi l e whe n he wa s i nvol ve d i n a c ol l i s i on wi t h

a not he r ve hi c l e . The acci de nt wa s caus e d, at l eas t i n pa r t , by

hi s ne gl i ge nc e . The Se t t e r s ’ mi nor c hi l dr e n, Me l a ni e Ann Se t t e r s

a nd Ni c ol e Kr ys t a l Se t t e r s , we r e pa s s e nge r s i n Mr . Se t t e r s ’ car

a nd we r e i nj ur e d i n t he a c c i de nt . Mr s . Se t t e r s s ubs e que nt l y ma de

de ma nd upon Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l f or pa yme nt of da ma ge s s us t a i ne d a s

a r e s ul t of t he c hi l dr e n’ s i nj ur i e s . Ba s e d upon t he “ f a mi l y
5

me mbe r ” exc l us i on i n t he pol i c y, Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l r e f us e d t o

honor he r c l a i ms a nd t hi s l i t i ga t i on r e s ul t e d.

III

The f i r s t is s ue r a i s e d by Mr s . Se tte r s is whe t he r

e nf or c e me nt of t he pol i c y’ s e xc l us i on of l i a bi l i t y c ove r a ge f or

i nj ur i e s t o a f a mi l y me mbe r vi ol a t e s t he publ i c pol i c y of

Te nne s s e e . She a r gue s t ha t by e xc l udi ng “ i nnoc e nt vi c t i ms f r om

c ove r a ge ” a nd “ unf a i r l y e xpos i ng t he i ns ur e d t o l i a bi l i t y wi t hout

c ove r a ge , ” t hi s e xc l us i on c ont r a ve ne s t he publ i c pol i c y of

Te nne s s e e , a s e xpr e s s e d i n t he Fi na nc i a l Re s pons i bi l i t y La w of

1977, a s a me nde d ( t he Ac t ) , T. C. A. § 55- 12- 101 e t s e q. I n he r

br i e f , s he pr i ma r i l y r e l i e s upon a c a s e f r om Wa s hi ngt on, Mut ual

of Enumc l aw I ns . Co. v . Wi s c omb, 634 P. 2d 441 ( Wa s h. 1982) . I n

t ha t c a s e , t he Supr e me Cour t of Wa s hi ngt on de c l a r e d t ha t t he s e

t ype s of f a mi l y me mbe r e xc l us i ons we r e voi d a s a ga i ns t t he publ i c

polic y of tha t s t a t e . With a ll due de f e r e nc e to tha t c our t a nd

its r e a s oni ng, we f i nd tha t the la w of thi s jur i s di c tion is

ot he r wi s e .

Te nne s s e e c our t s ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y he l d t ha t f a mi l y

me mbe r e xc l us i ons in li a bi l i t y ins ur a nc e pol i c i e s a r e va l i d. Se e

e . g. , Hol t v . St at e Far m Mut. Aut o. I ns . Co. , 486 S. W. 2d 734, 735

( Te nn. 1972) ; Omaha Pr ope r t y & Cas ual t y I ns . Co. V. Johns on, 866

S. W. 2d 539, 541 ( Te nn. App. 1993) ; Beef N’ Bi r d of Ame r i c a, I nc .

v . Contine nt al Cas ualty Co. , 803 S. W. 2d 234, 237 ( Te nn. App.
6

1990) ; a nd Dr e s s l e r v . St at e Far m Mut. Aut o. I ns . Co. , 376 S. W. 2d

700, 702 ( Te nn. App. 1963) . I n Hol t , t he Supr e me Cour t

r e a f f i r me d t he hol di ng of Dr e ssl e r tha t

[ c ] l a us e s i n i ns ur a nce cont r act s exc l udi ng

f r om c ove r a ge me mbe r s of t he i ns ur e d’ s f a mi l y

or hous e hol d a r e va l i d a nd bi ndi ng.

Hol t , 486 S. W. 2d a t 735 ( quot i ng Dr e ssl e r , 376 S. W. 2d a t 702) . 

I n mor e ge ne r a l t e r ms , t he c our t s of t hi s s t a t e ha ve he l d t ha t

“ c l e a r l y wor de d e xc l us i on[ s ] ” t ha t l i mi t , but do not c ompl e t e l y

ne ga t e , ot he r ge ne r a l pr ovi s i ons wi t hi n a pol i c y, a r e not

c ont r a r y t o publ i c pol i c y. Beef N’ Bi r d of Ame r i c a, 803 S. W. 2d

a t 237.

Thi s cour t addr e s s e d a case s i mi l a r t o t he i ns t a nt cas e

i n t he unr e por t e d c a s e of J. C. Pe nne y Cas ual t y I ns . Co. v .

Dougl as , C/ A No. 01A01- 9010- CH- 00338, 1991 WL 3311 ( Te nn. App. ,

M. S. , f ile d J a nua r y 18, 1 991, Ca nt r e ll, J .). Tha t c a s e invol ve d

t wo que s t i ons : whe t he r t he i ns ur e d’ s s t e ps on f e l l wi t hi n a f a mi l y

me mbe r e xc l us i on s i mi l a r t o t he one a t i s s ue he r e , a nd whe t he r

s uc h a c l a us e wa s vi ol a t i ve of publ i c pol i c y. As i s t he c a s e

he r e , t he f a mi l y me mbe r e xc l us i on wa s a l l e ge d t o be i n c onf l i c t

wi t h t he pol i c y unde r l yi ng t he Ac t . The c our t i n J. C. Pe nne y

he l d t ha t t he s t e ps on f e l l wi t hi n t he e xc l us i on; a nd t ha t t he

polic y wa s c ons i s t e nt with the Ac t ’ s ma nda t e s with r e s pe c t to

pr oof of f i na nc i a l r e s pons i bi l i t y. I d. 1991 WL 3311 a t *4. The

c our t a l s o not e d t ha t a c our t ’ s a ut hor i t y t o de c l a r e publ i c
7

pol i c y i s cl ear l y ci r c ums c r i be d. I d. 1991 WL 3311 a t *3. As

s t a t e d by t he Supr e me Cour t i n Smi t h v . Gor e , 728 S. W. 2d 738

( Te nn. 1987) ,

[ t ] he Cour t is not f r e e to e s t a blis h wha t its

me mbe r s be l i e ve t o be t he be s t pol i c y f or t he

St a t e ; r a t he r , we mus t de t e r mi ne whe r e publ i c

pol i c y i s t o be f ound, wha t t he s pe c i f i c

publ i c pol i c y i s , a nd how i t i s a ppl i c a bl e t o

t he c a s e a t ha nd. Or di na r i l y, t he Cour t i s

not the ins titution tha t is c a lle d upon to

di vi ne t he na t ur e of publ i c pol i c y i n i t s

mos t ge ne r a l te r ms ; thi s Cour t us ua lly

de c i de s whe t he r or not a ny c ont r ol l i ng publ i c

pol i c y ha s be e n e s t a bl i s he d or de c l a r e d a nd

t he n de t e r mi ne s how i t a ppl i e s t o a

pa r t i c ul a r cas e .

I d. a t 746. The s e pr i nc i pl e s we r e f ol l owe d by t he c our t i n J. C.

Pe nne y , a nd we be l i e ve t he y c ont r ol he r e .

The l e gi s l a t i ve br a nc h i s ve s t e d wi t h t he pr i ma r y

a ut hor i t y t o e s t a bl i s h publ i c pol i c y. Cr awf or d v . Buc kne r , 839

S. W. 2d 754, 759 ( Te nn. 1992) ( c i t i ng Hy de v. Hy de , 562 S. W. 2d 194,

196 ( Te nn. 1978) ) . We be l i e ve t ha t a ny de t e r mi na t i on t ha t f a mi l y

me mbe r e xc l us i ons a r e vi ol a t i ve of publ i c pol i c y mus t be l e f t t o

t he Ge ne r a l As s e mbl y. We not e t ha t body ha s ha d a mpl e

oppor t uni t y t o a ddr e s s t hi s i s s ue i n t he Ac t a nd e l s e whe r e , ye t

ha s f a i l e d t o do s o. 

The r ecent cas e of Br oadwe l l by Br oadwe l l v . Hol me s ,

871 S. W. 2d 471 ( Te nn. 1994) , doe s not c ompe l a c ont r a r y
8

c onc l us i on. The r e t he Supr e me Cour t l i mi t e d pa r e nt a l i mmuni t y,

hol di ng t ha t

[ p] a r e nt a l immunity in Te nne s s e e is limite d

t o c onduc t t ha t c ons t i t ut e s t he e xe r c i s e of

pa r e nt a l a ut hor i t y, t he pe r f or ma nc e of

pa r e nt a l s upe r vi s i on, a nd t he pr ovi s i on of

pa r e nt a l car e and cus t ody.

I d. a t 476- 77. The Br oadwe l l cas e f ol l owe d on t he “heel s ” of t he

a bol i t i on of t he doc t r i ne of s pous a l i mmuni t y i n t he Supr e me

Cour t cas e of Dav i s v. Dav i s , 657 S. W. 2d 753 ( Te nn. 1983) . Mr s .

Se t t e r s a r gue s t ha t t he s e de c i s i ons s houl d be “ l ogi c a l l y”

e xt e nde d t o i nva l i da t e a ny c l a us e i n a n i ns ur a nc e pol i c y t ha t

e xc l ude s l i a bi l i t y c ove r a ge f or i nj ur i e s t o a s pous e or ot he r

f a mi l y me mbe r . We di s a gr ee.

The case of El am v . Pr ot e c t i v e I ns . Co. and Pe r mane nt

Ge ne r al Assur anc e Cor p. , 1987 WL 13829 ( Te nn. App. , W. S. , f i l e d

J ul y 16, 1987, Ne a r n, J . ) , r e v ’ d on ot he r gr ounds , 1990 WL 458

( Te nn. , f i l e d J a nua r y 8, 1990, not de s i gna t e d f or publ i c a t i on,

O’ Br i e n, J . ) , addr e s s e d t he ef f ect of Dav i s ’ a bol i t i on of s pous a l

i mmuni t y on a f a mi l y me mbe r e xc l us i on i n a n i ns ur a nc e pol i c y t ha t

ope r a t e d t o de ny l i a bi l i t y c ove r a ge t o a wi f e whos e hus ba nd wa s

i nj ur e d a s a r e s ul t of t he f or me r ’ s ne gl i ge nc e . The c our t f ound

t ha t the Dav i s de c i s i on, whi c h a ddr e s s e d whe t he r one s pous e c oul d

br i ng a n a c t i on a ga i ns t t he ot he r i n t or t , ha d no be a r i ng on t ha t

c a s e , whi c h, a s he r e , i nvol ve d t he i nt e r pr e t a t i on of a c ont r a c t

of i ns ur a nc e . El am, 1987 WL 13829 a t *2. The c our t we nt on t o
9

s t a t e t ha t “ s pous a l e xc l us i on pr ovi s i ons i n a l i a bi l i t y pol i c y

a r e not vi ol a t i ve of publ i c pol i c y. ” I d. ( c iting Dr e ssl e r v .

St at e Far m Mut. Aut o. I ns . Co. , 376 S. W. 2d 700 ( Te nn. App.

1963) ) .

El am i s a na l ogous t o t he c a s e a t ha nd. I n our

j udgme nt , t he de c i s i ons i n Br oadwe l l a nd Dav i s , whi c h Mr s .

Se t t e r s as ks t ha t we ext e nd t o i nva l i da t e t he f a mi l y me mbe r

e xc l us i on he r e , do not ha ve t he “ e l a s t i c i t y” s ugge s t e d by he r .

We do not r e a d Br oadwe l l t o r e qui r e i nva l i da t i on of t hi s

e xc l us i ona r y pr ovi s i on on publ i c pol i c y gr ounds . Fur t he r mor e ,

c a s e s de c i de d s ubs e que nt t o Br oadwe l l ha ve uphe l d s i mi l a r f a mi l y

me mbe r e xc l us i ons , wi t hout e xpr e s s i ng a ny r e s e r va t i ons ba s e d on

publ i c pol i c y gr ounds . See, e. g. , St at e Far m Mut. Aut o. I ns . Co.

v . Dot s on, C/ A No. 02A01- 9407- CV- 00166, 1995 WL 548784 ( Te nn.

App. , W. S. , f i l e d Se pt e mbe r 18, 1995, Hi ghe r s , J . ) a nd Alls t at e

I ns . Co. V. Summe r s , C/ A No. 01A01- 9407- CV- 00361, 1994 WL 719839

( Te nn. App., M. S., f i l e d De c e mbe r 30, 1994, Le wi s, J . ) . The

c our t i n Dot s on a f f i r ma tive l y s t a t e d tha t “ e xc l us i ona r y

pr ovi s i ons i n a ut omobi l e i ns ur a nc e pol i c i e s a r e not i nc ons i s t e nt

wi t h the publ i c pol i c y of thi s s t a t e . ” Dot s on, 1995 WL 548784 a t

*3.

An i ns ur a nc e pol i c y mus t be c ons t r ue d i n a r e a s ona bl e ,

l ogi c a l ma nne r , s o a s t o e f f e c t ua t e t he i nt e nt i on of t he pa r t i e s .

J. C. Pe nne y , 1991 WL 3311 a t *2. Pa r t i e s t o a n i ns ur a nc e

c ont r act ar e f r ee t o cont r act as t he y s ee f i t s o l ong as t he y
10

r e ma i n wi t hi n t he bounds of l a w, i nc l udi ng publ i c pol i c y. El am,

1987 WL 13829 a t *2. Gi ve n t he s e c ons i de r a t i ons , a nd t he

a ut hor i t y i n t hi s s t a t e hol di ng t ha t f a mi l y me mbe r e xc l us i ons i n

lia bility polic i e s a r e c ons i s t e nt with the public polic y of

Te nne s s e e , we hol d t ha t t he e xc l us i on a t i s s ue i n t hi s c a s e i s

not c ont r a r y t o publ i c pol i c y.

I V

Mr s . Se t t e r s ’ s e c ond i s s ue r a i s e s t he que s t i on of

whe t he r t he t e r ms of t he pol i c y c r e a t e s uc h a n a mbi gui t y a s t o

r e qui r e a s t r i c t c ons t r uc t i on i n he r f a vor . We do not f i nd a ny

a mbi gui t y i n t he r e l e va nt pr ovi s i ons of t he pol i c y.

I t i s t r ue t ha t a mbi guous pr ovi s i ons i n a n i ns ur a nc e

pol i c y a r e t o be c ons t r ue d a ga i ns t t he i ns ur e r ; howe ve r , i n t he

a bs e nc e of a ny a mbi gui t y,

it is the dut y of the Cour t.. . to ta ke the

or di na r y me a ni ng of t he wor ds us e d, f a vor i ng

ne i t he r pa r t y in the i r c ons t r uc t i on... The

c our t s c a nnot c r e a t e a n a mbi gui t y whe r e none

e xi s t s .

Omaha Pr ope r t y & Cas ual t y I ns . Co. , 866 S. W. 2d a t 541 ( quot i ng

Wi ne c of f v . Nat i onwi de Mut. I ns . Co. , 444 S. W. 2d 84, 87 ( Te nn.

1969) a nd I n re Cl e me nt ’ s Es t at e , 414 S. W. 2d 644, 646 ( Te nn.

1967) ) . I n a ddi t i on, a s s t a t e d by t hi s c our t ,
11

[ s ] o l ong a s a n e xc l us i ona r y c l a us e me r e l y

l i mi t s c ove r a ge a nd doe s not t ot a l l y

e ma s c ul a t e a pr e vi ous l y s t a t e d cove r a ge , t hi s

Cour t doe s not c onc e i ve a c l e a r l y wor de d

e xc l us i on t o be r e pugna nt t o a pr e vi ous

ge ne r a l s t a t e me nt of cove r a ge .

Beef N’ Bi r d, 803 S. W. 2d a t 237. Tha t i s t he s i t ua t i on now

be f or e us . The pol i c y c ont a i ns a s t a t e me nt of c ove r a ge , f ol l owe d

by a pr ovi s i on r e l i e vi ng Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l of t he obl i ga t i on t o

de f e nd or s e t t l e cl a i ms t ha t ar e not cove r e d. I t l a t e r

e nume r a t e s cer t a i n exc l us i ons , or s peci f i c ci r c ums t a nces unde r

whi c h t he pol i c y’ s l i a bi l i t y c ove r a ge doe s not a ppl y. We do not

f i nd t he s e va r i ous pr ovi s i ons , whe n r e a d t oge t he r , t o be

a mbi guous . The r e i s c ove r a ge e xc e pt whe n t ha t c ove r a ge i s

e xpr e s s l y e xc l ude d.

We a r e without a ut hor ity to “ r e wr ite polic i e s of

i ns ur a nc e t o pr ovi de c ove r a ge whe r e no c ove r a ge wa s i nt e nde d. ”

Spe ar s v . Comme r c i al I ns . Co. Of Newar k, N. J. , 866 S. W. 2d 544,

548 ( Te nn. App. 1993) . Si nc e we f i nd no a mbi gui t y i n t he

r e l e va nt l a ngua ge of t he pol i c y he r e , we hol d t ha t Mr s . Se t t e r s ’

s e c ond i s s ue i s a l s o wi t hout me r i t .

The j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t i s a f f i r me d. Cos t s on

a ppeal ar e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt and he r s ur e t y. Thi s cas e

i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or c ol l e c t i on of c os t s a s s e s s e d

t he r e , pur s ua nt t o a ppl i c a bl e l a w.
12

_________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .

CONCUR:

_________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

_________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .