### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 16, 200 5 S es sio n MARLIN & EDMO NDSON, P.C. v. NATIO NAL UNION FI RE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PIT TSBURG H, PA., ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 02-1794-IV The Hon orable Richard H. Dinki ns, Chan cellor

No. M2004- 02280-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Dece m ber 22, 2005

This case involves a denia l of cover ag e under a prof essional liabilityinsurancepolicy . The g ravamen of this case is whether the Appellant/ins uranc e company rec eived proper notice under the policy , of a cl ai m by

Appellee/acc ounting f

irm. Appellee/acc ounting f irm purcha sed the Policy throug h its usual insurance br oker, a lso an Appellee in this appeal. Appe l lee/ac counting firm no tif ie d A pp e llee/ insur a nc e br ok e r o f i ts c la im, bu t no writt e n n oti c e wa s f or wa rd e d to Appellan t/insurance company . The trial c ourt found, inte r a lia , that notice to the A p p e l l e e / i n s u r a n c e b r o k e r c o n s t i t u t e d n o t i c e t o t h e A p p e l l a n t / i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y. C o n s e q u e n t l y, the t ri al court entered judg ment ag ainst Appellant/insuranc e company and dismissed Appellee/acc ounting f

irm’s cause of a ction ag ains t Appellee/insurance broker . We reve rse and rema nd.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d and Rem anded
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Richard Gla ssman and R. Doug las Hanson of Me mphis, Tennessee for Appe llant, National Union Fire I nsuranc e Company

of Pittsburgh, P.A. Gra nt C. Glassford of Franklin, Tenne ssee f or Cross-Appe llant, Marlin & E dmondson Ba rry L . Howar d and M. Kristin Selph of Nashville, Tenne ssee for Appellee s, Maurice Pinson and Cooper, L ove & J ackson, Inc. OP IN ION Marlin & Edmondson, P.C. (“M& E,” “Appe llee,” or “Cross-Appe llant”) is an a ccounting firm located in Nashville, Tenne ssee. M& E purcha sed a pr ofessional liability insurancepolicy

(the-2-

“Policy ”) throug h MauricePinson (“Pinson”), an indepe ndent contra ctor with Cooper, L ove & J ackson ( “CLJ ,” and tog ether with Pins on and M& E, “Appe llees”) . The Policy was dra fted a nd issued by National Un ion Fire I nsuranc e Company of Pittsburgh, P.A. (“ National Union,” or “Appe llant”), pa

rt of the AI G g roup. The te rm of the Policy was fr om Aug ust 1, 1996 to August 1, 1997. CL &J did not have a direc t a g ency contra ct with A I G; conseque ntly , when it was ne cessa ry to procurethis type of co v er age for M& E, Pinson went to Mid-Sout h Be nefits, which did havea written ag ency

ag ree ment with National Union.
Th e Pol ic y

a t is su e in thi s ca se is a “c la ims ma de ” po lic y a nd c on sis ts of the“ Ac c ou ntants Pr of e ssi on a l Lia

bil ity I ns ur a nc e De c laratio ns ,” wh ic h p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: NOTICE: EXCEPT TO SUCH EXTE NT AS MAY OTHE RW ISE B E P ROVI DE D H ER EI N, THE C OV ERAG E OF TH I S P O L I C Y I S L I M I T E D T O L I A B I L I T Y F O RO N LY THOS E C LA IM S THA T A RE F IR ST MADE AG AI NST THE INSURED AND RE PO RTED TO T HE INSURER DURING THE PO LICY P ERIOD. P LEASE READ THE POLICY CAR EFUL LY AND DI SCU SS THE CO VE RAGE THEREUN DE R W ITH YO UR IN SURAN CE AG EN T OR BROKER.
Th is p ortio n o f the de c laratio ns pag e is w ri tte n inbo ld, re d ty pe . T he Pol ic y

its e lf is e nti tle d“A ccou nt ant s P rof ess io nal Liab il it y

I ns uran ce P ol icy ” and read s, in pertine nt p a rt , a s f oll ow s:

IN SUR IN G AG RE EM EN TS I

. C o v er age T o p ay o n behalf

of the Ins ur e d all sums which the I ns ur ed shall become leg ally obligated to pay

as Dam ages and Cl aim s Ex pe nse s beca use of any Cl a i m o r C l a i ms , first made a g ainst the Insu red and reported in writing to the Company during the P olicy P e r iod or Extended Reporting Pe riod , arising out of a n y Ac t, Er r ororOm iss ion of the Insu red

.... I I . Cl a ims Ma de a ndRe po rt e d B a sis
This policy applies only

to Cl a i ms fi rs t ma de a g a ins t the I nsure d a ndre po rt e d to theCompa ny or its au th o r iz e d a g e n t d u r in g the Polic y P e r iod or an Extended Reporting P eriod

....-3- * * *
A Cl aim shall be deeme d to ha ve been reported when written notice of such Cl aim

i s r e c e i v e d b y t h e C o m p a n y o r i t s au t h o r i z e d a g e n t

. It is a c on dit ionpr e c e de nt t o c ov e rage here un de r that a ll Cl a i ms be re po rt e d inc omp lianc e wi th C on dit ionI No tic e of Cla im.
* * * CONDITIONS
I . N oti c e of

Cla im Upon the Insu red b e c o m i n g a w ar e o f a n y Act , Erroror Om ission which could r easonab ly

be expected to be the basis of a Cl aim cove red hereby , written notice sha ll be g iven by or on beha lf of the Insu red to the Company or an y o f i t s authorized ag ents as soon as p ra ct i cab l e d u ri n g t he P o l i c y P e r iod or Extended Reporting P eriod , toge ther with the fullest information obtainable. If a Cl aim is made ag ainst the Insu red , the Insu red shall immediately forwa rd t o the Company every demand, notice, summons or other proc ess re ceive d by the Ins ur e d or by

the Insu red’s repr esentative(s).
* * * All notices of Cl a i ms or Ac ts , Er r or s o rOm iss ion s , d em an ds or reque sts for payment p ro v i d ed for in this pol icy

shall be in writing a nda dd re sse d to : National Union F ire Insuranc e Company Acc ountants Professional LiabilityClaims Department 70 Pine Street New Y ork, Ne w York 10270- 0150; Or its du ly auth orize d a g e nt. (Emphasis in orig inal). The Policy

does not define the term “ ag ent,” “ authorized ag ent,” or “duly authorized ag ent”. Onor

abo ut Jul y

2, 19 97 , Joe Ed mon ds on , th e pr e sid e nt o f M & E, wa s n oti fi e d a bo ut a potential profe ssional liabilit y lawsuit ag ainst M&E to be filed by one of its clients, Ms. Akin.-4-

Ms. Akin wished to enter into a tolling ag ree ment to ext end the statute of limit ations in the matter for six months. Mr. Edmondson then called Mr. Pinson at CL &J to discuss the sit uation. On J uly 3, 1997, Mr. Pinson alleg edly advised Mr. Edmondson that National Union had g iven permission for M& E to enter into the tolling a g ree ment. That af ternoon, M& E signe d the tolling ag ree ment and deliver ed it to the CL &J office s. National Union’s c laim manag er, F ay e B rooks, testified that she “ might havehad a phone conver sation” on Jul y

3, 1997 reg arding this incident but stated that notice was not suff icient under the Policy

beca use it was not in writing . CL &J claims manag er, Reg ina Har ris, testified that she talked to Mid-South Be nefits and pr ovided it with information reg arding the tolling a g re e me nt. Mid -S ou th B e ne fi ts a lle g e dly tol d M s. Ha

rris that it c ou ld n ot h e lp andMs. Ha rris neede d to go dir ectly

to National Union. Ms. Har ris then spoke with F ay e B rooks on J uly 3, 19 97 abo ut the tol lin g a g re e me nt. Onor abo ut D e c e mbe r 2 7, 19 97 , M r. Ed mon ds on re c e ive d th e c omp la int fi le d a g a ins t M&E in the unde rly ing matter and immediate ly forwa rded same to CL &J. Ms. Harris testified that she fa x ed a c opy

of this complaint to National Union on J anuar y 9, 1998, along with a cove r sheet that re ad, in re levant part: “You [National Union] were notified of this incident on J uly

3, 1997 by the ag ent Mauric e Pinson.” By letter of January

14, 1998, L ouis.M. Glatt, a claim ana ly st for A.I . Manag ement and Professional LiabilityClaim Adjusters, on behalf of National Union, ac knowledg ed re ceipt of the complaint but declined to indemnify and/or de fend M& E in the ac tion. Specifically , the letter re a ds , inpe rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Yo ur fi rm ’s la st pol ic y te rm

wi th N a tio na l U nio n e xpir e d o n A ug us t 1, 1997 and y our firm did not purcha se an ex t en d ed reporting e nd or semen t. Con se qu e ntl y , y ou ha ve no va lidc ov e ra g e wi th National Union. Your

attention is directed to y our inspection of the

“ I ns uring Ag re e me nts ” to y ou r A c c ou ntants Pr of e ssi on a l Lia

bil ity Policy which state: “C o v er age To p a y o n b e h a l f o f t h e I n s u r e d a l l s u m s w h i c h t h e I n s u r e d sh a ll become leg al l y

obligated to pay

as Da mag es and Claims Expenses beca u s e o f any

Claim or Claims, first m ade a g ainst the I nsured and repor te d inw r it in g to th e Co mp a n y d u r in g th e Po li c y

Pe r io d or Ex tended Reporting Period....”
Acc o r d in g ly , s in c e th e “ G e n e r a l L iab il it y N o ti c e of Occ urre nce/Claim” form submit ted by Cooper, L ove and Jackson,-5- I nc. is dated January

9, 1998 and is outside the term of cover ag e for y ou r p oli c y , N a tio na l U nio n d isc la ims c ov e ra g e fo r this la w s uit

. Wit h respe ct to y our ar g ument that y ou provided notice to Cooper, L ove and Jackson, Inc. which w ould t ri gger cover ag e by National Union, y o u are ag ain invited to inspect the “Conditions” section of y ou r A c c ou ntants Pr of

e ssi on a l Lia

bil ity Polic y wi th r e fe re nc e to

“ No tic e of

Cla im” . It st a te s: “U p o n the I nsured be coming awa re of any Act, Err or or Omission wh ic h c ou ld r e a so na

bly be ex pecte d to be theba sis of a Cla im c o v e r e d h e r e b y , w r itte n n o ti c e s h a ll b e g iv e n b y o r o n b e h a lf o f the I nsured to the Company

or any of its authorized ag ents as soon as pra c ti c ab led u r in g th e Po li c y Pe r io do r E xte n d e d Re p o rti n g Pe r iod, toge ther with fullest information obtainable....”
You h av e indi cate d to Direc tor Sarah Che rmak a nd my self in a telephone c onversation of this morning that at no time did y ou speak to a n y e mp lo y e e o f

[A I G ] o r N a ti o n a l U n io n w h ic h is a me mb er comp a n y o f A I G

. F u rth e r mo r e , in a te le p h o n e c o n v e r s a ti o n on J anuar y 12, 1998 with Direc tor Chermak, Maurice Pinson of Cooper, L ove and Jackson, y o u r i n s uranc e ag ents, indicated to he r that no writt e n claim wa s ma de by his of fi c e un til Janu ary

9, 19 98 wh e n h is office submitt ed a copy

of the suit paper s serve d upon y ou and y our fi rm . Wh ile Pin so n’ s re c or ds ind ic a te that he p la c e d a te le ph on e c a ll to Direc tor Fay e B rook s o f my officeon J uly

3, 1997 to discuss the eff ects of a t o l l ing a g ree ment on y our insuranc e cove rag e, neither Direc tor Br ooks nor Pinson have any rec ord that a c opy

of the tolling ag ree ment was submitted to National Union for its inspection, or that Pinson subm itted a letter to National Un i o n in acc ordanc e with the above- ref ere nced “ Notice of

Claim” p rovisions of y our policy describing any

“ac t, error

or omission which coul d re as o nably be expected to be a

basis of a c laim...” On J une 18, 2002, M& E filed a “ Complaint for Dec laratory J udg ment and B rea ch of Contract” ( the “Complaint”) a g ainst National Union see king de clar ation from the tria l court that National Union should provide c overa g e and inde mnification under the Policy purcha sed by M&E f or the unde rly ing suit filed by Ms. Akin ag ainst M&E. O n Aug ust 12, 2002, National Union filed its “Answe r to Complaint for Dec laratory J udg ment and B rea ch of Contra ct,” whic h den ies th at N ati on al U ni on has anyob li gati on un der t he P ol icyto in dem ni fy and/o r def

end M&E in the underlying suit. On Nove mber 1, 2002, M& E moved for leave to amend its Complaint. The Motion was g rante d, and, on Nove mber 18, 2002, M& E filed its “F irst Amended Complaint for De clar atory

J udg ment and B rea ch of Contra ct” ( the “Ame nded Complaint”). The Amended-6-

Complaint adds causes of action ag ainst Pinson and CL &J for neg lige nce and brea ch of c ontrac t. Pinson and CL &J filed a joint “Answe r” on D ece mber 31, 2002, in which the y g ener ally deny the materia l alleg ations of the Amende d Complaint and specifica lly states that, at all times materia l to the suit, “Maurice Pinson was an ag ent for Coope r, L ove & J ackson w hich ac ted as a g ent for National Union....” Likewise, on January 23, 2003, National Union filed its Answe r to the Amended Complaint reiter ating its previous position t hat it is not l iable to M& E under the Policy a nda g a in s pe c if

ic a lly de nying that ne ith e r P ins on no r C L & J is or wa s it s a g e nt. On Fe bruary

23, 2004, the ca se wa s hear d befor e the tria l court, sitting without a jury . At the close of

proof, the Cha ncellor ma de the f ollowing, r elevant findings f rom the benc h: The primary

i ssue or the pe nultimate issue, as I see it, wa s whether notice to Cooper, L ove & J ackson w as notice to National Union on J uly

3

. The proof shows that Mr. Edmondson contac ted rd Mr . Pi ns on on –o r t

ri e d to c on ta c t hi m on July 2 a ndc on ta c te d h im nd on J uly 3 and furnished him a copy of the tolling ag ree ment i n the

rd afte rnoon of J uly 3

. The evidence also shows that Ms. Har ris had a rd conver sation with F ay e Br ooks of National Union on the morning of J u ly 3 , a n d th a t M r . Pi n s o n f o ll o w e d th a t u p a li tt le later that rd morning and made a note that Ms. B rooks had agr ee d to the ninemonth ex tension of time.
I n her te stimon y , whi le Ms. Br ooks did not acknowledg e or re c a ll that c a ll f

ro m Mr . Pi ns on , s he te sti fi e d th a t sh e didno t di sp ute that it occur

red. So I think that Cooper, L ove & J ackson w as notified in all other res p ects. The notification aspec t, written notification aspec t applicable to the policy occur red on July3 , within the policy

rd period.
* * * The other are a in which Nat i o nal Union might be bound by t h e a c t i o n s o f

C o o p e r , L o v e & J a c k s o n i s w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e p o l i c y, wher e the policy

is, under the notice provisions of the policy , wher e n o ti c e is g iv e n to th e c o mp a n y o r a n y o f it s au th o r iz e d a g ents. The question then bec omes whethe r Cooper, L ove & J ackson w as authorized to g et this notice under the terms of the policy . The proof is clear that there was not an ag ency ag ree ment betwee n Cooper, L ove & J ackson and National Union. I do think that question, the fact that au t h o ri zed ag ent is not define d in the policy , it’s not designated i n the pol icy and ther e is no proof befor e the Court of

, at least there was none to the policyholder,-7- Mr . Edm on [d]so n, abo ut wh o the auth orize d a g e nt w a s, that th a t mu st b e c o n s tru e d a g a i n s tN a t i o n a l U n i o n , t h a tp r e p ar e d t h e p o l i c y. It’s clea r that Mr. Edmon[ d]son relied on Cooper, L ove & J ackson and that Cooper, L ove & J acks o n took actions which we re consistent with both what Mr. Edmon[d] son neede d and what I think clea rly the company

contemplated in terms of its noti ce, I mean, National Union conte mplated in terms of its noti ce pr ovisions. I n that re g ard , I no te that in

.. .th e le tte r f ro m Mr . G latt [ se e su

pr a ]...t hat letter declining cover ag e did not raise the authority issue.... I n fac t, it talks ab o u t g e t t i n g a

c l a i mf o r mf r o mC o o p e r , L o v e & J a c k s o n . Its a ys that, i t’ s o uts idethete rm of c ov e ra g e of

y ou r p oli c y . N e ve r s a id Cooper, L ove & J ackson is not our authorized ag ent.... So I th in k th a t th e r e w a s n o c laim

. . . b y N a ti o n a l U n io n that Cooper, L ove & J ackson w as not authorized to at least ha ndle that ini tia l r e c e ipt

a ndpr oc e ssi ng of

thec la im f

or the m. So for those re asons, I ’m g oing to hold that there was prope r notice of the claim in J uly of 1997, as r equire d under the policy , and t h a t , t h e r e f

o r e , t h i s i s a

c o v e r e dc l a i mu n d e r

t h e p o l i c y. These f indings a re inc orporated by

ref ere nce into the tria l court’s Or der of Marc h 1, 2004, which re a ds , inre le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: The Co u rt dec lare s that National Union F ire Insuranc e Compan y of Pittsb ur g h is ob lig a te d p ur su a nt t o [th e Pol ic y ] to pr ov ide c ov e ra g e to a nd a de fe ns e to Ma rl in & Ed mon ds on , P. C..

.. in the ca se of Ma

rg are t Akins vs. L . J oe Edmondson, et al..... The Court further finds that the ac tions of National Union Fir e I nsuranc e Company

of Pittsburgh in this case do not constitute bad fa i t h and denie s the Plaintiff’s claims for ba d faith ag ainst National Union. The Court further finds that the Def endants, Maurice Pinson and Cooper, L ove & J ackson , I nc., ar e not liable to Marlin & Edmondson, P.C . in this m atter. * * *
I t is, therefor e, OR DE R E D, AD J UD GE D and DE CREED that Ma rl in & Ed mond so n be a wa rd e d a de c laratory

jud g me nt a g a ins t National Union F ire I n suranc e Company of Pittsburgh, that Joe-8- Edmondson , M ar l i n & E d m o n d s o n , P

. C

. . . . ar e e n t i tled to cover ag e and a def ense unde r [the Poli cy ]....
I t is further OR DE R E D, AD J UD GE D a n d DECREED that the claims of Marlin & Edmondson, P.C. ag ainst Maurice Pinson and Cooper, L ove & J ackson, Inc. ar e dismissed with prejudice. On Marc h 29, 2004, National Union filed a Motion for New Trial and to Ame nd. Na t i o n al Un i o n fi l ed a S u p p l em en t al P o s t -T ri al M o t i o n fo r N ew T ri al an d/ o r t o Am en d Fi n d i n gs of F act and Conclusions of L aw on June 11, 2004. National Union’s motions were denied by Orde r of Aug ust 16, 2004. I n its Order of Aug ust 18, 2004, the trial court re iterate s its denial of Natio na l U nio n’ s mo tio ns a nd , p ur su a nt t o T e nn . R. Civ . P. 54 .0 2, de c lare s th a t f ina l ju dg me nt i s enter ed as to the f

indings set out in the Mar ch 1, 2004 Or der, su pr a . National Union appe als and raises three issues as stated in its brief:
1. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in holding that Marlin & E dmondson c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e w r i t t e n n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r t h e p o l i c y; 2. Whe the r the pr ov isi on re qu iring “ writt e n n oti c e ” wa s a mbi g uo us ; and 3. Whether Marlin & Edmondson was e ntitled to avail its elf of an arg ument that the not i ce pr ovision was ambig uous when Marlin & Edmondson never

rea d the policy

or attempted to re v i ew the policy to asce rtain the prope r method or pr o cedur e for providing written n o t i c e a s r e q u i r e d b y t h a tp o l i c y. M&E, a s cross-a

ppellant, ra ises one additional issue as state d in its brief:
I f this Court reve rses the trial court’ s decision that notice wa s proper whether the court err ed in dismiss ing Marlin & Edmondson’s brea ch of contra ct and ne g lige nce c lai m s against Maurice Pinson and Cooper, L ove & J ackson, Inc. We first note that, bec ause this ca se wa s tried by the court sitt ing w ithout a jury , we revie w the ca se de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness of the finding s of fa ct by the trial court. Unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the finding s, we must aff irm, absent err or of law

. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
It is well settled in Tennessee that the interpre tation of a written contrac t is a matter of law, and thus, no pre sumption of corre ctness in its interpretation ex ists. NSA DB A Be ne fi t P lan, v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. , 968 S.W .2d 791 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). T he ca rdinal rule in theT h e re c o rd su p p o rts a fi n d ing tha t t h e t o ll in g a g re e m e n t wa s d isc u sse d w ith N a tio n a l U n io n (a n d li k e ly 1

a p p ro v e d b y the m ). E v e n if w e a ssu m e , ar guendo , t hat the t o l l i ng agreem ent f unct i o ned t o ext end t he p o l i cy p eri o d , t he to lli n g a g re e m e n t sp e c ifi c a lly sta te s tha t it e x p ire s o n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 9 7 . A s d isc u sse d , i n f ra , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat n o w r i t t en n ot i ce of

t h e cl ai m wa s g i v en t o N at i on al U n i on u n t i l J an u ar y 1998. -9- construction of c ontrac ts is to ascertain the intent of the parties. West v. Lami nite Plasti cs Mfg. Co. , 674 S.W .2d 310 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984). If the c ontrac t is plain and unambig uous, the meaning there of is a question of law , and it is the Court's f unction to interpret the c ontrac t as written a c c or din g to i ts p la in t e rm s. Petty v . Sloan , 197 Tenn. 630, 277 S.W.2d 355 (Tenn.1955). The lang uag e used in a

contra ct must be taken and understood in its plain, ordinary , and popular sense. Bob Pe ar

sa ll M oto rs, Inc . v . Re

ga l- Chry sle r P

ly mouth, I

nc ., 521 S.W .2d 578 (Tenn.1975) . I n construing contra cts, the words e x pressing the parties' intentions should be given the usual, natura l, and ordinary meaning

. Ballard v. North Am erican Life & Casualty Co. , 667 S.W .2d 79 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983). If the lang uag e of a written instrument is unambiguous, the Court must i nterpre t it as written rathe r than a ccor ding to the une x presse d intention of one of the parties. Sutto n v . Fi

rst Na t. B ank of

Cro ssv ill e , 620 S.W .2d 526 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981). On the question of notice , the Policy at issue in this case r equire s that any claims be “re ported” to the company or to an “ authorized ag ent” of the company . The Policy specifie s that “[a] claim shall be deeme d to have be en re ported whe n writt en notice of suc h claim is rec eived [d u r in g th e Po li c y

Pe r io d o r E xte n d e d Re p o rti n g Pe r io d ] by the Com pany or its au thori

zed ag e nt ” (e mphasis added) . I n short, under the plain lang uag e of the Policy , there are three require ments that must be met in order f or a c laim to be considere d “re ported” : (1) the notice must be in writing, ( 2) the notice must be rec eived during the policy period or e x tended r eporting pe ri od , a nd(3 ) the no tic e mus t bere c e ive d b y Natio na l U nio n o r i ts auth orize d a g e nt. 1
I n the instant case , it is undi sputed that the cove rag e period of the Policy was Aug ust 1, 1996 to Aug ust 1, 1997. I t is also undisput ed that M& E neve r re ported its claim to National Union. Rather, M& E relied upon its ag ent, CL &J and in particular Mr. Pinson. To that end, M& E p ro vid e d a

c op y of thetol lin g a g re e me nt i n th e un de rl y ing pr of e ssi on a l ma lpr a c tic e c a se to CL &J. The fa ct that Mr. Pinson discussed the tolling ag ree ment, either be fore or af ter it was sig ne d, wi th a

Natio na l U nio n e mpl oy e e do e s n ot s a tis fy theplain l a ng ua g e of

thePol ic y

be c aus e notice ther eunder

must be in writing and, conseque ntly , oral notification would not suffice. Howeve r, if CL &J (even if CL &J is not an ag ent of National Union) sent that tolling ag ree ment (which w as in writing ) to National Union, then, unde r the plain lang uag e of the Policy , National Union (the “ Company ”) w ould have r ece ived written notice of a c laim. Concerning whether the tol lin g a g re e me nt w a s se nt t o N a tio na l U nio n, Mr . Pi ns on te sti fi e d, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Q. What did y ou do wi th the tol lin g a g re e me nt w he n y ou re c e ive d it , Mr. Pinson?
A. It was g iven to Reg ina Har ris at Cooper, L ove & J ackson.-10- Q. She’s the lady

that handled the claims during that period of time?
A. Th a t’ s c or

re c t. Q. Di d y ou pe rs on a lly fax it [the tol lin g a g re e me nt] or pr ov ideit t o National Union? A. No, sir. Q. And I think y ou assumed that Ms. Har ris had fax ed it to National Un ion , c or

re c t?
A. I a ssu me d th a t, y e s. Concerning whether

she sent the tolling a g ree ment to National Union, Ms. Har ris testified, in re le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: Q. Now, I

beli ev e y ou [Ms . Har

ris] had communication with Mr. Pin so n a bo ut the tol lin g a g re e me nt o n July 3 of 19 97 , c or

re c t? rd
A. Cor re c t. Q. Now, there ’s bee n testimonyin the case that the tolling ag ree ment was never faxed by Cooper, L ove & J ackson to a ny body . I s that true?
A. I have no ide a. * * * Q. Now, ther e’s no r ecor d that the tolling ag ree ment was e ver f axed to National Union. But it’s tr ue, isn’t it, that y ou all [C L &J] had the tolling ag ree ment and did, in fac t, fax itto CNA?
A. Cor re c t. Q. At the ir re qu e st?
A. Cor re c t. Q. Do y ou reme mber National Union ever making a re quest that y ou fax to it thetol lin g a g re e me nt?
A. I thi nk I mig ht r e me mbe r the m do ing that?-11- Q. An d d id y ou e ve r f

a x it to the m?
A. I thi nk I m ay have in ‘98. (Emphasis adde d). From the re levant testimony , there is no indication that CL &J faxed, or o t h e r w i s e s e n t , t h e t o l l i n g a g r e e m e n tt o N a t i o n a l U n i o n d u r i n g t h e P o l i c y p e r i o d

. C o n s e q u e n t l y, the Company

(i.e. National Union) did not rece ive notice of M&E’ s claim within the policy period. The ne x t question that must be addresse d is whether M& E’s g iving the w ritten tolling ag ree ment to CL &J constitutes noti ce to an “authorized ag ent” of National Union. The trial court spec ifically

found that, bec ause the Policy does not define the term “ ag ent,” “ authorized ag ent,” or “duly authorized ag ent” the te rm is ambiguous. We disag ree . The terms “ag ent,”

“ auth orize d a g e nt, ” a nd“ du ly auth orize d a g e nt” ha ve be e n u se d inle g a le se fr om t ime imm e moria l. A s n ote d a

bo ve , th e la ng ua g e us e d ina c on tr a c t mu st b e take n a ndun de rs too d in its plain, ordinary , and popular sense. Bob Pe ar

sa ll M oto rs, Inc . v . Re

ga l- Chry sle r P

ly mouth, Inc ., 52 1 S. W.2 d 5 78 (T e nn .1 97 5) . In c on str uin g c on tr a c ts, thewo rd s e xpre ssi ng thepa rt ie s' intentions should be given the usual, natura l, and ordinary meaning

. Ballard v. North Am erican Life & Casualty Co. , 667 S.W .2d 79 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983). B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 59 (5 ed.

th 19 79 ) d e fi ne s “ a g e nt, ” in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: A p e rs on auth oriz ed bya no the r t o a c t f or him , o ne int

ru ste d w ith another ’s business.... One who repr esents and a cts for another unde r the c on tr a c t or

re latio n o f a g e nc y .. .. A b us ine ss r e pr e se ntativ e , w ho se function is to bring about, modify , aff ect, acc ept perf

ormanc e of, or terminate c ontrac tual obligati o ns betwee n principal a nd third pe rs on s. .. . O ne wh o u nd e rt ake s to tr a ns a c t some bu sin e ss, or to manag e some affair, for another, by the authority

and on ac count of the latter, and to rende r an a ccount of it.... (Interna l citations omit ted).
Be cause the term “ ag ent” itself de notes the g iving of actua l or offic ial power , the addition of thea dje c tiv e s “ auth orize d” a nd“ du ly (i .e . p ro pe rl y ) a

uth orize d” to the wo rd“ a g e nt” is u su a lly redundant. See Bry an A. Ga rner , A Dictionary

of Modern L eg al Usag e 299 (2nd e d.1995).
Tu rn ing to the re c or d inthi s c a se , it is u nd isp ute d th a t CL & J hadno dir e c t auth ority to write insura nce policie s for National Union. Rather, CL &J went throug h another broker , MidSouth Bene fits, in order to proc ure the Policy for M& E. David Sciortino, Vice President and are a ma na g e r f

or CL & J, te sti fi e d, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Q. W h i l e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e i n s u r a n c e m ark e t s . . . t h e r e ar e c e rt a in insuranc e companies with whom Cooper, L ove & J ackson ha s an a g e nc y re latio ns hip , c or

re c t?-12- A. Cor re c t. * * * Q. Tell me who the y

are . A. Cin c inn a ti, Tr a ve le rs , St . Paul. We’ ve g ot s e ve ra l. Q. B ut y ou did not have an ag ency relationship wit h National Union, c or re c t?
A. We [CL & J] did n ot h a ve a c on tr a c t. Q. An d y ou ha d n o a g e nc y re latio ns hip to bin d N a tio na l U nio n, did y ou?
A. No , w e did n’ t.
Fr om our revie w of the e ntire re cord in this case , and applying the usual and ordina ry meaning of the word “ ag ent” to the f

acts of this ca se, we can only conclude that CL &J was not an ag ent of Natio na l U nio n. Con se qu e ntl y , th e fa c t th a t M& E p ro vid e d th e writt e n to lli ng a g re e me nt t o CL &J does not satisfy

the Policy

require ment that written notice be rec eived by an “a uthorized ag ent”. In addition, as discussed above , no written notice w as g iven to National Union dire ctly

. There fore , the notice r equire ment contained in the Policy (a c ondition prece dent to cover ag e) w as not satisfied in this case, a nd National Union is not bound to indemnify or def end M& E in the underlying suit. I f any

neg lige nce e x ists in t his matter, it must necessarily be on the pa

rt of CL & J. M& E’ s c omp la int a lle g e s a ndthepr oo f i s u nd isp ute d th a t Pin so n a ndCL & J we rea g e nts for M& E in the procur ement of the policy , servicing of the policy , and for the purpose of

g iving n o ti c e o f c laim s . M & E r e li e d u p o n it s a g e n ts to th e e xte n t th a t M & E d idn o t e v e n f a mi li ar iz e itself with the terms of the policy at issue.
A c c o r d in g ly , a n d f

o r th e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e r e v e r s e th e O r d e r o f th e tria l c o u rt. We rema nd for e ntry

of a judg ment in favor of National Union, and f

or such f urther pr ocee dings a s ma y be ne c e ssa

ry c on c e rn ing thea c tio n f

ile d b y M& E a g a ins t CL & J andPin so n. Cos ts o f this appea l are assessed one -half to Appe llee/Cross-Appe llant Marlin & E dmondson, P.C ., and onehalf to Appe llees, Cooper, L ove & J ackson and MauricePinson.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK

CRA WF OR D, PRE SI DINGJUDG E, W.S.