### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 8, 200 9 S es sio n

TE N N ES SE E F A R M ER S M U TU A L I N SU R A N C E C OM P A N Y v. MIC HAE L N EILL

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 11202 F ranklin Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2008- 02056-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Jun e 2, 2009

I nsuranc e compa

ny filed suit for a de clar ation that the pol icy exclusion for intentional acts applied to a n in jur y a ri sin g fr om a

pa int ba ll g a me . T he tr ia l c ourt ru le d f or the ins ur e d. We a ff

ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

A N DY D. B E NN E TT , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R . and R I C HAR D H. D I NK I NS , J J ., joined.
Steven Ashley

Dix , Murfre esboro, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Tenne ssee F arme rs Mutual In s u r an c e C o mp a n y.

L e e B us sart

B ow le s, L e wi sb ur g , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lle e , M ic ha e l N e ill

.
OP IN ION

On Janu a ry 28 , 20 06 , M ic ha e l N e ill and Cha nd le r F ull e r w e re pla

y ingpa int ba ll o n p ro pe rt

y owned by Michae l’s pare nts. At t h e t i m e, M i ch ae l was 25 y ear s old. Chandler wa s 13. Michael won the first g ame a

nd Chandler won the second. A fter the second g ame wa s finished, Chandler too k o ff his pr ote c tiv e e y e g e a r. Mic ha e l a im ed at Ch and le r’ s c he st a nd fi re d o ne la st s ho t. Unfortunately , the paintball cur ved and hit C handler in the ey e. Michae l immediately took Chandler to the emerg ency room. Chandler suff ere d some injury

and sued Micha el for da

mag es. Tenne ssee F arm e rs Mu tua l I ns ur a nc e Com pa ny , th e ins ur e r o f t

he Ne ill pr op e rt

y , f ile d thi s se pa

ra te a c tio n to deter mine if the poli cy exclusion for intentional actions relieve s the insuranc e compa ny of any liability

. The poli cy exclusion states: “We do not provide li ability cover ag e under this Coverag e E - P er s o n al L i ab i l i t y

fo r an y p er s o n o r en t i t y fo r: 1

. Bo d i l y i n j u ry , ec o n o m i c lo s s , o r p ro p er t y d am age
cause d by the intentional or malicious ac t or omission of any person.”-2-

Only Michae l and Chandler te stified at the trial. Micha el testified that, as a sort of hazing

or c on g ratul a tio ns bu t w ith ou t an in te nt t o hurt , the wi nn e r of a g a me mig ht be the re c ipi e nt o f a la te sh ot f ro m th e los e r- - t

hat is, he mig ht be sh ot by a no the r p a rt ic ipa

nt a ft e r t he g a me is o ve r. Th a t is what Micha el said he did to Chandler. He said that he knew the paintball would possibly sting or br uis e if sh ot a t c los e ra ng e . H e a lso k newthat Ch a nd le r h a d o n c ov e ra lls . H e ha d a lr e a dy hit Chandler the sa

me way during the paintball g ames. Ac cording to Mic hael, the paintball curve d and struck Chandler

in an unexpected a

nd unintended plac e.

Chandler a lso testified that the paintball curve d. He f urther stated t hat, had it not curve d, the pa int ba ll w ou ld h a ve hit him in the sto ma c h or c he st. As ke d if pr e vio us sim ila r sh ots to t

he c he st hurt , h e te sti fi e d th a t th e y did no t hur t bec a us e he wo re pr ote c tiv e c lot hin g . H e a lso te sti fi e d th a t late sh ots we re c omm on

in t he ir pa int ba ll g a me s.

The trial court found that Michae l’s action of “discha rg ing his paint ball g un at the che st of Chandler F uller wa s a ce lebratory g esture, a

nd that his action wa s ac ci d en t al and no ha rm was int e nd e d

. ” T h e r e f

o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u rtf

o u n d t h a tt h e i n s u r a n c e c o mp a n y ’ s p o l i c y p r o v i d e d l i a b ili ty

cover ag e for Michae l’s act. Te nnessee Fa rmers Mutual Insuranc e Company appea led, maintaining that th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in its de te rm inatio n o f M ic ha e l’ s in te nt.

The trial c ourt’s dete rminat i on of Michae l’s intent is a finding of fac t. Appellate c ourt

r e v i e w o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f

f a c tb y a t r i a l c o u rti s d e n o v o u p o n t h e r e c o r d , a c c o mp a n i e d b y a presumption of cor

rec tness unless the pre pondera nce of the evidence is ot herw ise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The trial court’s decisions of law are revie wed de novo with no such presumption. Taylor

v . F e ze ll , 158 S.W .3d 352, 357 (Tenn. 2005)

.
The Te nnessee Supreme Court has state d that “in orde r to find t hat an intended or ex pecte d

a c ts exc lus ion a

pp lie s, it must be e sta

bli sh e d tha t the ins ur e d inte nd e d th e a c t and also intended or expected that inj u ry wo uld result.” Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., v. E vans , 814 S.W .2d 49, 55 (T e nn . 1 99 1) ; see also Me tro. Prop. & Cas. I ns. Co. v. Buck

ner , No. E2008-00989- COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1162612, *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr

. 30, 2009). Under ly ing the Evans approa ch is a c oncer n that if a pe rson could insure himself a g ainst liabilit y for intentional wr ong doing, “the de terre nce attributable to financ ial responsibility would be missing.” Evans , 814 S.W .2d at 56.

I t app e a rs that the tr ia l c ourt us e d th e tw o- pa

rt Evans test. As we r ead the trial court’ s order , it seems the j udg e found that Michae l’s act of firing at Chandler w as intentional but that the harm

was a ccide ntal since no ha rm was intende d. The re cord fully supports the judg e’s de termination that Michae l intentionally fired the paintball at Chandler. The diff icult part of the Evans te st i n th is c a se is whether Michae l “also int ended or expected that injury would result.” Evans , 814 S.W .2d at 55.

As to the intent or expectation of injury , Evans teac hes that “[t] he intent itself may be ac tual

or inf e rr e d f ro m th e natur e of the a c t and the a c c omp a nying re a so na ble fo re se e a

bil ity of ha rm . I t is im mate r ia l th a t th e a c tu a l h a r m w a s o f a d if

f e r e n t c h a r a c te r o r ma g n it u d e o r n a tu

r e th a n that intended.” Id . There is suppor t in the rec ord for a

finding that Michae l intended to harm Chandler-3-

in t h e s e n s e t h a t h e kn e w t h e r e w a s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s t i n g o r b r u i s e f r o m t h e s h o t

. T h e r e i s a lso support in the rec ord for a finding that Michae l did not int end to har m Chandler. Micha el had shot Chandler dur ing the g ame. Michael knew Chandler had on protec tive clothing. Michae l testified that he did

no t in te nd

to h a rm Cha nd le r. Th e tr ia l jud g e de te rm ine d that Mi c ha e l di d n ot i nte nd to harm Chandler , and the e vidence does not preponde rate ag ai n s t that finding . A deter mination of intent is fact-spe cific. Context matters. I n the context of a paintball g ame as Michael a nd Chandler play ed it, what Micha el did was not an intentional a ct of wrong doing. I t w as part of the g ame a nd done with no intent to harm. Th i s d i s t i n g uishes the instant case from other case s apply ing the int e nti on a l a c ts e xclu sio n, su c h a s Evans , which involved Eva ns burning money

that did not be long to her (a lthough she was mistaken as to whose mone y it was), and Buck

ner , which involved shooting

a r if le a t in te r s tate tr aff

ic. Evans , 814 S. W.2 d at 50 ; Buck ner , 2 00 9 WL

11 62 61 2, a t *1 ; se e als o Miele v . Zurich U.S. , 98 S.W .3d 670, 674-75 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (willful failure to make re pairs

re qu ir e d by a c on str

uc tio n c on tr a c t) ; Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., v. I nman , No. 03A01-9808- CV00246, 1999 WL 134947, * 2 (T en n. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 1999) ( voluntary manslaug hter a

nd

a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult ); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pickral , N o

. 0 1 A 0 1

- 9 6 0 9

- CV

- 0 0 4 0 9 , 1 9 9 7 WL 80046, *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. F eb 26, 1997) ( child molestation).

Th e de c isi on

of the tr ia l c ourt

is a ff ir me d. Co sts of

a pp e a l are a sse sse d a g a ins t a pp e lla nt, T e n n e s s e e F a r

m e r s M u tu a l In s u r a n c e C o mp a n y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

___________________________________ ANDY D . BEN

NETT, JUDGE