### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE MA RC H 20, 200 3 S es sio n

DANIEL BI LLS, J R., ET AL 

### . v. CO NS ECO INSU RA NC E C O.

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Sumner County No. 2001C-296 TomE. Gr ay, Chancellor

No. M2002- 01906-COA-R 3-CV - F iled October 28, 2003

H o l l y M

. K i r

b y, J

. , c o n c u rr i n g s e p ar a t e l y.

I write se pa

rate ly fo r t wo re a so ns . F ir st, to e mph a size the ne e d for the le g isl a tur e to a dd re ss the statutes g overning the intox ication exclusion in group insura nce policie s. The majority opinion rig htly notes that the leg islature ena cted a statute, Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 56- 26-109, which sp e c if ie s th at an int oxic a tio n e xclu sio n may e xclu de c ov e ra g e on ly

fo r a los s su staine d “ in

c on se qu e nc e of the ins ur e d’ s b e ing int oxic a te d, ” that is , a los s caused

by the insured’ s intox ication. This is not applicable t o a group policy
, howeve r, as specifie d in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 56- 26-122. As a r esult, a g roup insuranc e policy may exclude cover ag e fo r an i n s u red if the injury

o c c u r s w h e n t h e i n s u r e d i s i n t o x i c a t e d
, e v e n i f t h e i n t o x i c a t i o n i n n o w a y c au s e d t h e a c c i d e n t

. In oth e r w or ds , if

the ins ur e d is drink

ing wh ile a

pa sse ng e r i n a

ve hic le , o r i nd e e d d ri nking wi ne wi th din n e r i n h i s o w n h o m e , a n d i s s tru c k b y a n e rr a n t v e h i c l e , h i s i n j u r i e s ar e n o t c ov e re d b yhis insurance if i t i s a g roup policy . This makes no sense . The majority is corre ct in apply ing the
statutes and the policy as written in this case, but the inconsistenc y in treatment unde r the statutes should be reme died by

our leg islature.

The sec ond rea son for this sepa rate concur

renc e is to e x plain a portion of my analy sis of the

a ff ir ma nc e of

the tr ia l c ou rt ’s g rant o f s umm ary jud g me nt in fa vo r of Con se c o. Th e pr ov isi on in this policy excludes from cove rag e a loss sustained while t h e insured is “ intox icated” or “unde r the inf lue nc e of in to x ic a nts .” B ill s’ s b loo d- a lc oh ol l e ve l of 0. 13 7, of

c ou rs e , r a ise s th e re bu tta ble presumption that he was intox icated, so the issue is w hether Bills has proff ere d sufficie nt evidence
to r e bu t th a t pr e su mpt iona ndc re a te a g e nu ine iss ueof

fa c t.

Th e e vid e nc e pr of

fe re d b y the B ill s, a ndno te d b y the ma jority
, is ins uf

fi c ie nt f or a va ri e ty of reasons. The Bills raise the issue that the pain medication may have a ffe cted the B AC level, but prese nt no expert testimonyto establish this. They assert that one o f t he par amedics on the scene of the a ccide nt told Mr. Bills that his son seemed “ perf ectly fine,” clea

rly inadmissible hearsay , and do no t su bmi t a n a ff

ida vit by the pa rame dic wh o ma de tha

t st a te me nt.A c l o s e r q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , h o w e v e r , f

r o m t h e s o n ’ s d e p o s i t i o n , a n d t h i s m e r i t s d i s c u s s i o n

. In the de po sit ion , in re sp on se to a qu e sti on abo ut wh e the r he c on sid e re d h ims e lf int oxic a te d at th e tim e of the a ccide nt, Bi l ls, J r. re plied that he did not. His opinion may be dubious indeed in lig ht of a blood-alcohol leve l of 0.137 and the othe r surrounding circ umstances. Howeve r, since w e do not

assess cr edibilityat this point, i t is li kely suff i ci en t t o create a

g enuine issue of

fac t reg arding wh e the r B ill s w a s “ int oxic a te d, ” su ff ic ie nt t o s ur viv e a

mot ionfo r s umm ary

jud g me nt.

Neve rtheless, the pr ovision in t his policy also excludes cover ag e for a loss incurred w hen the insured is “unde r the influenc e of intoxi cants . . . .” Whil e B ills st ates in his deposition his opinion that he wa s not intox icated, he does not assert that he was not “ under the influence of intox icants.” There fore , in light of his B AC level of 0.137, ther e is no g enuine issue a s t o wh ether Bills was “under the influenc e of intox icants,” and the trial court rightly g rante d summary

judgme nt in favor of Con se c o. I

c on c ur in the a ff ir ma nc e of

the tr ia l c ou rt ’s de c isi on on thi s b a sis

.

H O LL Y M

. K I R B Y
, J.