### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2001 Session SUSAN WEISS, ET AL 

### . v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL 

### . Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 306126 T.D. John R. McCarroll, Jr., Judge

No. W2000-02506-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 21, 2001

The Weisses procured supplemental insurance from State Farm th

rough its agen

t, Mr. Brooks. In procuring such insurance, Mr. Weiss rejected uninsured/underinsured motorist cov erage. Mrs. Weis s was involved in an automobile accident wherein she sustaine d damages exceeding the amount covered by her insurance policy. As the othe r driver involved in the accident was either uninsured or underinsured, the Weisses sou ght recovery from State Farm.

State Farm denie

d the claim, determining th at the Weisses did not have coverage under their umbrella policy. The Weisses brought an action against State Farm and Mr. Brooks. State Farm and Mr. Brooks filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appe al as of Right; Judgme

nt of the Circuit Cour

t Affirmed; and Remanded
D AVID R. F ARMER , J., delivered the opinion of the c ourt, in which W. F RANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S. and A LAN E. H IGHERS , J., joined. R. Douglas Hanso

n, Memphis, Tennes see, for the app ellants, Susan Weiss

and Joseph L. Weis s. George T. Lewis,

III, and L ori HacklemanPatterson, Memphis , Tennessee, for the appellees, Sta

te Farm Fire & Ca

sualty Co. an

d Larry O. Brooks.
OPINION Joseph L. Weiss

(Mr. Weiss

) and Susa

n Weiss (Mr

s. We iss, coll ectively th

e Weisses) maintained an automobile insur ance policy

with State

Farm Fire

& Casualty C

ompany (Stat

e Farm) withcoverage in the amount of $100,000 per pers on/$30 0,000 per occurr ence and with the

same amounts in force for uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) c overage. In 1993, Mr. Weiss purchased from State Farm agent, La rry O. Brooks (Mr. Brooks), a personal liability umbrella policy in the amount of $1,000,000, whe

rein both Mr. Weiss and Mrs. Weiss were named insured. Mr. Brooks offered Mr. Weiss the option of

purchasing UM c

overage in amo

unts that would matc

h the Weisses’-2-

liability coverage und

er the umbrella p

olicy, but Mr

. Weiss expressly re

jected such. Mr. We

iss reliedupon Mr. B r ooks to keep him adv ised of necessar

y coverag es and limits to make

sure his family was fully insured. Mr. Brooks provided the Weisses with advert isements and brochures concerning additional and impo rtant c overages; however, he did not notify the Weisses rega rding UM issues.
In December

of 1998, Mrs. Weiss was involved in an automobile accident with Brian Wilson (Mr. Wilson). As a result,Mrs. Weiss sustained injuries and incur

red medical bills o

f approximately $350,000, which exceeded the Weisses’ $100,000 per person UM coverage. Because Mr. Wilson was either uninsured or

underinsured, the Weisses made a claim to State Farm under their insurance pol icy. State Farm denied cov erag e un der t he u mbr ell a po lic y. As a result, the Weisses brought an action against State F

arm a nd Mr. Brooks, alleging various breaches of duties owed by insurance agentsand companies, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and statutory violations governing UM coverage. State Farm and Mr. Brooks filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted

by the trial c

ourt. In its grant of summary judgment to State Fa rm and Mr. Brooks, the trial court determine

d that State

Farm and Mr. Brooks did not have a duty to sell the Weisses more coverage than they

requested o r selected; that Mr. W eiss’s reje ction of UM coverage on the umbrella policy was effective

to also reject such coverage on behalf of Mrs. Weiss; and that Mr. Weiss’s cla

im of loss of consortium, as we

ll as the Tennesse

e Consumer Protec

tion Act claims,

were inapplicable. This appeal followed. The Weisses raise the following issues, as stated in their brief, for this court’s review:
1. Whether

Joseph Weiss had actual or apparent authority to waive or reject Susan Weiss’ right to uni nsured mot orist cove rage und er t he u mbr ell a po lic y. 2. Whether

Susan Weiss ma

de a k nowing and intelligent waiver of uninsured mot ori st c ove rage und er [ the ] um brel la p oli cy. 3. Whether

there exist[s] an issue of

fact as to whether Larry

Brooks and State Farm owed a duty t

o Susan Weiss to make su re she understoo

d her available insurance cove

rages. 4. Whether

State Farm and L

arry Bro ok[s’] failure to ad

vise Mrs. Weiss as to her level of uninsure

d motorist

coverage was a cause in fact of her damage

s.

This appeal is from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, State Farm and Mr. Brooks. Summa

ry judgmen

t is appropriate if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the movant proves it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. On appeal, we must take the strong

est view of the ev

idence in favor o

f th e no nmoving party

, allowing all reasonable

i nfe rences in its favor and discarding all countervailing evidence. See Shadrick v. Coker , 96 3 S.W.2d 72 6, 731 (Tenn . 1998) (cit ing Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210-11 (Tenn. 1 993))

.-3-

Since our review concerns questions of law, we review the record de novo with no presumption of correctness

of the judgment below. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bain v. Wells , 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). Actual or Apparent Authori ty
The facts areundisputed that in 1993, Mr. and Mrs. Weiss discussed and decided to procure supplemental automobile insurance coverage in the form of an umbrella po l icy in the amount of $1,000,000. Mr. Weiss met with Mr. Brooks regarding the umbrella policy, and when asked by Mr. Brooks whether he wished to have UM coverage under the umbrella policy , Mr. Wei ss expre ssly rejected such. Mr. Weiss regularly handled all the transactions pertaining to insurance, and neither Mr. Weiss nor Mrs. We

iss dispute that Mr. Weiss had the authority to procure such insurance. Rather, the Weisses contend that Mr. Weiss did not have the authority to

reject UM cover

age on Mrs. Weiss’s behalf.
Section 56-7-1201(a)(2) of the Tennessee Code states, in pertinent part, as follows, “

[A]ny namedinsured may reject in writing such uninsured motorist coverage completely or select lower limits of such coverage . . . . Any document signed by the named insured or legal representative which initially re

jects such cover

age or selects

lower limits shall be binding upon every insured to whom such polic

y applies . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(a)(2) (2000) (emphasis added). Based upon this languag

e, the Weisses, in th

eir brief, state

that the issue bef

ore us, then, is whether Mr. Weiss acted as Mrs.

Weiss’s legal representative in rejecting or waiving her u

ninsured motorist coverage. We f

ind such issue to be w

ithout merit.
The umbrella policy

procured by

Mr. Weiss li sted both Mr. Weiss and Mrs. Weiss as the namedinsured. Because both Mr. Weiss and Mrs. Weiss are named insure

d, they can

act on behalf of the oth er an d bi nd t he o the r to the ter ms o f th e in sur ance pol icy. Further, we note that Mrs. Weiss indeed ratified her husband’s decision to reject UM coverage.
Ratification is considered val id and binding if th

e princip al has, at the time of ratification, full knowledge of the material facts and circumstances surrounding the unauthorized act. Se e Webber v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , ____ S .W.3d ____, No. E1999-01909-SC-R11-CV, 2001 WL 740770, at *3 (Tenn. J uly 3, 2001) (ci ting Gough v. Insurance Co. of N . Am. , 11 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1928)). Accor

ding to her testimo

ny in her de

position, Mrs. Weiss ratified the acts of her husband after obtaining full knowledge o f the mate rial facts and circumstances surrounding her husband’s rejection of UM coverage: Q: When did you be

come aware that Mr. Weiss had signed those two b

oxes in the lower left-hand corner rejecting uninsured motorist coverage with respect to t he u mbr ell a po lic y?
A: After his deposition [February 15, 2000].-4- . . . . Q: Do you think your husband was wron g not to have bought the uninsured motor ist co vera ge?

. . . . A: No, I don’t feel like my husband was, no. Q: Why d o you feel tha t wa y?
A: Because

we didn’t have a l

ot of money th

en. It would c

ost a lo t mo re m one y. We were, you know - -

Ratification, in this case, may also be said to have occurred as a matter of law. Bringin g a lawsuit to enforce the terms of a co ntr act evidences the intention of the principal to ratify an otherwise unauthorized contract. See Webber , 2001 WL 740770, at *4 (“The law has long been settled that ‘[b]y brin

ging an action

on the contract a

principal will be he ld to have ratifie d it, whether the action be ag

ain st the third person, or against the agent, for the proceeds of the contract.’”)(citing Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Roe , 102 S.W. 343, 348 (Tenn. 1907)). Thus, based upon the clear language of section 56-7-1201(a)(2) of the Tenne ssee Code and upon Mrs. Weiss’s ratification of Mr. Weiss’s rejection of UM coverage, we find that Mr. Weiss’ s rejection, as a named insured, was binding on Mrs. Weiss as she was also a named insured to whom the umbrella policy applied. Duties of Insurance Agents and Insurance Companies
The Weisses ask this court on appeal whether State Farm and Mr. Brooks had a duty to make sure Mrs. Weiss understood her insurance coverage and whether the failure to advise her of her level of UM coverage w

as a cause in fac

t of her damage

s. According to T

ennessee law, un

less there exists an agreement cr

eati ng cont inuing responsibilities, an insurance agent’s obligation to a client ends wh en the agen t obtains the insurance asked for by the client. See 16 Tenn. Juris. Insurance § 8 (2001) (citing Quintana v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. , 774 S.W.2d 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). Here, Mr. Weiss me t with Mr. Brooks in

order to obtain supplemental insurance in the form of an umbrella policy. As part of the umbrella policy , Mr. Brooks offered the

Weisses UM coverage in amounts equal to their liability coverage under the umbrella policy . Mr. Brooks recommended this coverage to th

e Weisses, stating

that it was an impor

tant coverage

and that it was rel

a t ively inexpensive. Despite this information, Mr. Weiss expressly rejected such coverage. The re cord does notdemonstrate that t

he Weisses entere

d into an agreement with Mr. Brookscontinuing Mr. B rooks’ responsibilities. Based

upon the foregoing facts and law, we find that State Farm and Mr. Brooks didnot owe a dut y tothe Weisses to sell them more coverage than they requested or sele cted.-5-

Further, we are of the opinion that State Farm and Mr. Broo ks di d not owe a duty

to inform Mrs. Weiss of the coverages selected by her husband; henc e the failure of State F

arm and Mr. Broo

ks to do so was not a cau

se in fact of Mrs.

Weiss’s damages

. Conclusion
In summary, we have determined t hat Mr. Weiss’s rejection of UM coverage under the Weisses’ umbrella policy wasbinding on Mrs. Weiss. We have further determined that State Farm and Mr. Broo ks o wed no d uty to the Weisses to sell them more coverage than they requested or selected. Based

upon the foregoing conclusions, the remaining issues are pretermitted. We hereby affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in all respects. Costs of this appeal are t

axed to the appellants, Susan Wei ss a nd J ose ph L. Wei ss, and the ir s uret y, for which execution may issue if n eces sar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE