### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 12, 200 4 S es sio n MID-CE NTURY INSURANCE COMPANY v. VIRG INI A WI LLI AMS, ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 9551 The Honorabl e Jon K. Blackwood , Judge

No. W2004-00484-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Janu ary 11, 2005

Appellant, an insurance c ompany , appea ls from trial c o u rt ’s judgme nt finding that the business pursuit and home ca re se rvice exclusions to persona l liability cover ag e in a homeowner s insurance policy

did not ex clude c overa g e for acc idental death of child who drowne d in a bathtub while in the ca

re of Appellee

. Trial court found t hat Appellee’s arrang ement to car e for dece dent was not a business pursuit or home car e service within the meaning of the insura nce c ontrac t, but rather wa s a n in fo rm a l ty

pe of ba by sit tin g mot ivate d b y

lov e a nd /or favo r f or de c e a se d c hil d’ s p are nts

. Appellant conte nds that motivation by profit was irrele vant t o whether Appellee was eng ag ed in a business pursuit or home ca re service , that the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst the trial court’s fac t finding s, and that trial court erre d in finding f or Appe llees. We reve rse the judgme n t o f the trial court, finding that the business pursuit and home car e service ex clusions do bar covera g e under the h o m e o w n e r s p o l i c y.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Reve rsed
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . joined and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J., f ile d a Part ia l D iss e nt.
Ronald L . Har

per a nd Alicia Y. Cox of Memphis F or Appellant, Mid-Century I nsuranc e Company
L loy d R. Tatum of Hende rson For Appellee s, Futre ll and Spencer Ha rrie t S. Th omp so n o f B oli va r F or Ap pe lle e s, Vi rg ini a

a ndJer ry Willi a ms
OP IN ION Appellant, Mid-Century

I nsuranc e C ompany , appea ls from trial court order finding that the business pursuit and home ca re se rvice exclusions in a homeowner s insurance policy did not ex cludeB e c a u se the d e c e d e n t, P a tric k J u a n S p e n c e r, is re fer re d to thr o u g h o u t the re c o rd a s “P e te y,” w e w ill 1

re fer to him a s “P e te y” in this o p inio n fo r th e sa k e o f cla rity. -2- c ov e ra g e fo r the a c c ide nta l de a th of Pa tr ic k J ua n Spe nc e r (“ Pe te y ” ), a n a pp ro xima te ly

on e -y e ar- old 1 child who died by

drowning in a bathtub in the home of Ms. Virg inia Wil liams (“Ms. Will iams”), wh o wa s c ari ng fo r him a t the tim e
. F ind ing that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d inc on c lud ing that Ms . Wil lia ms was not conduc tin g a busi ness pursuit or home c are service , we r ever se the judg ment of the trial
c ou rt

. I. P ROCEDURAL HISTORY
On Sep te mb e r

2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , A p p e ll ant, Mid-Century I nsuranc e Company

(“Mid-Century ”), f

iled a Complaint for De cl ar at o ry J udg ment seeking a dete rmination that the homeowne rs insuranc e po lic y it i ssu e d to Ap pe lle e s, J erry a ndVi rg ini a Willi a ms ( “ the Willi a mse s” ), didno t f urnis h pe rs on a l li abil ity c ov e ra g e fo r the de a th o f P a tr ic k Jua n “ Pe te y ” Spe nc e r, wh o d ie d a c c ide nta lly in their home on October 4, 2000. On October 23, 2002, Appellee s, Virg inia and Jerry Wil liams, filed an Answe r to Complaint for Dec laratory J udg ment. On Dec ember 12, 2002, T ak i l a Futrell and Pa tr ic k Jua n Sp e nc e r, the pa re nts of Pa tr ic k Jua n Sp e nc e r, fi le d a Mo tio n to I nte rv e ne a s D e fe nd a nts in the decla

ratory judgme nt action and simultaneously filed a C o m p l ai n t in I nterve ntion. On Se pte mbe r 9 , 2 00 3, the tr ia l c ou rt e nte re d a n Or de r Gr a nti ng L e a ve to I nte rv e ne a s Pa rt y De fe nd a nts a nda llo we d M s. F utr e ll’ s a nd Mr

. Spe nc e r’ s Complaint in I nte rv e nti on to se rv e a s a n a ns we r o n th e ir be ha lf . A tria l on the de c laratory jud g me nt ac tio n wa s hel d in th e Cir c uit Cou rt of Ha rd e ma n Co un ty on J anuary 22, 2004. An Orde r wa s entere d on J anuary 27, 2004 finding that the business pursuit and home care service exclusions of t he homeowner’s policy wer e inapplica

ble her e. Mid-Century

filed its ti mely Notice of Appea l on Febr

uary 17, 2004.
II. F AC TS
I n late 19 99 , V ir g ini a

Willi a ms andhe r h us ba nd , J e rry Willi a ms, bo ug ht a hou se a t 385 D ixie Hills Road in Bolivar , Tenne ssee. W hen they boug ht the house, the Williamses purchase d a Specia l Form Homeowner s Packag e Policy issued by Mid-Century

I nsuranc e Company

u n d e r p o li c y n u mber 66918971129. Not long a fter theWil liams moved into their house, Ms. Will iams beg an serving a s a ca reg iver for

her f our g randc hildren (the children of her daug hter, Reg ina) while her daug hter wa s wo rking . In c on ne c tio n w ith he r c hil dc are re sp on sib ili tie s f or the se g rand c hil dr e n M s. Willi a ms re c e ive d p ub lic a ssi sta nc e un de r the Ai d f or F a mil ie s w ith De pe nd e nt C hil dr e n ( AF DC ) p ro g ram, thr ou g h th e Sou thw e st Hu ma n Re so ur c e Ag e nc y
. I n Au g us t of 20 00 , Ms. Willi a ms’ s c ou sin , D a isy Futre ll, contacted Ms. Williams and e x plained that her stepdaug hter Takila Futre ll ( “Ms. Futr ell”)
n e e d e d a b a c ku p b ab ys i t t e r f

o r h e r t w o c h i l d r e n , Q u i s h a S p e n c e r , w h o w a s f o u r ye ar s o l d , a n d P e t e y, who was a lmost one y ear old at the time. Ms. Wi lliams ag ree d to watch Ms. F utrell’s childre n.
On t h e m o rn i n g of Oc tober 4, 2000, Ms. F utrell dropped of f Petey and Quisha at the Wil liams hous e o n Di x ie Hills Road. After Ms. Williams had taken a bath and had put two older chi ldre n in the bathtub , s he wa s su mmo ne d b y c hil dr e n inthe ho me a ndfo un d Pe te y pa rt ly-3-

su bme rg e d inwate r i n th e bathtub . H e die d late r at th e Re g ion a l Me dic a l Ce nte r i n M e mph is. B e c a us e Ap pe lla nt c ha lle ng e s the c re dib ili ty of Ms. Willi a ms andthe fa c t f ind ing s o f the tr ia l c ou rt , we will re view Ms

. W i l l i am s’s testimony at diffe rent stag es in this lit igation, and the trial court’s jud g me nt, in s ome de ta il.
A. M s. Wil lia m s’ s M ar c h 11 , 2 00 2 de pos it ion te st im ony On September

27, 2001, Ms. Futre ll and Patrick Spence r name d the Will iamse s in a wrong ful death law suit filed in the Circuit Court of Harde man C ounty , Tenne ssee. The plaintiffs alleg ed that Petey was left unattended by Mrs. Wil liams, and that he fell into a bathtub and drowne d during the time when he w as left unattended. The complaint further alleg ed that Mrs. Wil liams w as neg lige nt in f a ili ng to e xer cis e or din ary c are in s up e rv isi ng the min or c hil d a ndthat sh e faile d to e xer c ise
rea sonable a nd ordinary

car e in re moving a ny attrac tive nuisance from the pr emises. The c omplaint
a lso a lle g e d th a t “ it w a s th e du ty of the de fe nd a nts to e xer c ise re a so na ble a ndor din ary

c are in
mon ito ri ng sa id c hil d a ndke e pin g sa id c hil d f ro m e nd a ng e ri ng him se lf .” On Ma rc h 1 1, 20 02 , M s. Willi ams w a s d e po se d by

th e pl ain ti ffs ’ at to rney , L lo y d T atu m. Dur in g that dep os it io n, Ms . W il lia ms g ave an acc ount of the eve nts leading to Petey ’s death and the nature of t he childca re a rra ng ement that e xiste d b e tw e e n h e rs e lf a ndMs. F utr e ll.
When asked how ma ny

times she had ca

red for P etey in her house hold, Ms. W illiams st ated that he had be en in her

household every wee k since Fe bruary or the fir st of Marc h in 2001, and that she ca red f or him every

day , Monday

throug h Friday . Ms. Wi lliams sta t ed that the pa rents of he r g randc hildren did not pay her f or childca re, but that Ms. F utrell paid her $60 a we ek. She stated that sh e arrive d at th e $6 0 a

we e k f ig ur e be c a us e sh e c ha

rg e d $ 30 fo r e a c h c hil d. S he st a te d th a t Ms

. Futre ll supplied the di aper s neede d for Petey

. She stated t hat s he care d for Quisha and Petey every day , and that she cared for P etey all day

. When asked how Ms. Futre ll paid her , Ms. Wi lliams stated that she alway s paid her in c ash and almost a lway s paid her on Friday s. Ms. W illiams st ated that he r fe e fo r k e e pin g the tw o ch ild re n ne ve r vari e d: “[i]t did n’ t g o d ow n, it d idn ’t g o u p. ” Ms. Willi a ms ag ree d that $60 a we ek “pr obably ” amounted t o cl o s e t o a dollar an hour for keeping Petey

and Qu ish a . Ms. Willi a ms te sti fi e d tha t she ne ve r ha d a wr itt e n co ntr a c t with Ms. F utr e ll. I f M s. F utr e ll didno t ne e d h e r t o k e e p Pe te y a ndQu ish a

on a g iven d ay , sh e would d e du c t $1 0 f ro m w hat Ms

. Futre ll owed her

for that wee k. She testified that she fe d the childre n brea kfast, lunch, a nd snacks at her home. Ms. Wil liams te stified that she did not consider he r re ceipt of A FDC funds f or kee ping her g randc hildren to be a way of making a profit. She testified that she loved Pete y and would have kept him even if she had not g otten paid. M s. Wil liams sug g ested that she m ay have lost money

by keeping Petey and Quisha for $60 a we ek. She stated that she had ne ver c onducted a business in her home.
B. M s. Wil lia m s’ s A ugus t 2 7, 20 03 de pos it ion te st im ony On September

23, 2002, Mid-Century

I nsuranc e filed a

Complaint for

Dec laratory

J udg ment seeking a dete rmination that the insuranc e policy it issu ed t o d efendants, the Willi amses, did not furnish liabilitycover ag e for the ac cidental de ath of Petey . As part of this decla

ratory judgme nt-4-

a c t i o n , o n A u g u s t

2 7 , 2 0 0 3 , M r s
. W i l l i a m s w a s d e p o s e d b y R o n a l d H ar p e r , c o u n s e l f

o r M i d

- C e n t u r y. During her de position byMr. Har per, Ms. Williams onc e ag ain g ave an acc ount of the events lea ding to P e te y ’s de a th andthe natur e of the c hil dc are arr a ng e me nt that e xiste d b etw een herse lf a ndMs. Futre ll.
Ms. Wi lliams testified that Ms. Futre ll was “not really ” pay ing he r to kee p Petey and Quisha. She said that Ms. Futre ll onlypaid her “[w]hen she [ Ms. Futre ll] felt l ike it.” Ms. Wil liams testified that $60 a wee k was only what she expected Ms. Futrell to pay , but that “ she didn’t do that .... I ’m jus t say ing that $6 0 w a s w hat I wou ld ha ve lik e d to ha ve re c e ive d. ” Ms. Willi a ms e xpla ine d th a t, in her prior

deposition, she had only

meant that she expe cted Ms. Futrell to pay $60 a we ek, not that she ac tually

rec eived it. On cr oss-examination byM s
. Fu tre ll ’ s attorney , Ms. Wi lliams ex plained that she was very upset during the Marc h 11, 2002 deposition, and that she had dif ficulty talking a bout the situatio n. She te sti fi e d th a t sh e no w ha d a be tte r re c oll e c tio n of e ve nts le a din g to P e te y ’s de a th due to counse ling she was re ceiving with her pa stor.
C. M s. Wil lia m s’ s J anua r y 2 2, 20 04 tr ial te st im ony
The trial of

the dec laratory judgme nt a ction was held on J anuary 22, 2004. This trial was the third time Mrs. Wi lliams ga ve testimo n y ab o u t t h e events leading to Petey ’s death and the
arr ang ement she ha d with Ms. Futre ll to car e for him. She testified that she did not keep Pete y in her house every day

. When c onfronted with her Mar ch 2002 deposition testimony in which she testified that sh e ha d k e pt P e te y

e ve ry day , Ms. Willi a ms sa id she wa s “ so up se t, I do n’ t r e me mbe r w hat I

sa id
or did .” Ms. Willi a ms te sti fi e d tha t she did no t kee p Pete y in exc ha ng e fo r mon e y fr om M s. F utr e ll, statin g , “ [s]he did n’ t pay

me a nythi ng ,” a ndla te r s ta tin g , “ sh e did n’ t pay me no mon e y .” Ron a ld Har per, the attorney

examini n g h e r , confr onted her with the inconsistency

betwee n her state ment that Ms. Futre ll never pa id her a ny money , and her

prior stateme nt (in the Marc h 2002 deposition) that Ms. Futre ll almost alway s paid her on Friday . Ms. Wi lliams testified that Ms. Futrell paid her on Friday “[w]henever she paid me.” Ms. Williams was once ag ain asked whether Ms. Futre ll paid her $6 0 a we e k. I n re sp on se , Ms. Willi a ms te sti fi e d, “ I tol d he r if sh e pa id me a nythi ng , I wo uldlik e to g et $60 a we ek if I

was ke eping him a wee k.” Aske d whether Ms. Futre ll ever paid her $60 a wee k, Ms. Wi lliams stated, “No, she didn’t

. No

. . . . I ’m telling y ou she did not pay me no $60 a we ek.” Asked how she came up with the fig ure of $60 a we ek, Ms. Will iams t es t i fi ed, “Wher e I g ot that from, it’s just like if I

was g oing to keep y our child, I would tell y ou ... y ou’re g oing to pay me $60
a we ek.... I

don’t know whe ther y ou’re g oing to g ive it to me or not

. I just expect for y ou to do it.”
D. The tr ial c our t’ s j udgm e nt
At the conc lusion of the trial o n the dec laratory judgme nt action, the court entere d the following Orde r:
The P laintiff, M id-Century I nsuranc e Company , has broug ht this declaratory action for the Court to dete rmine if an ex cl u s ion in a homeowner ’s policy the plaintiff iss ue d to de fe nd a nts is a

pp lic able . I f s o, Mid -C e ntu ry ’s po lic y do e s n ot c ov e r a

tr a g ic-5-

death of a child that ac cidentally

drowne d at def

endants’ home . T h e dec edent, Patric k Juan Spe nc e r, wa s in the ho me of the de fe nd a nts wh e n th e c hil d a c c ide nta lly fe ll i nto a bathtub a nddr ow ne d. Th e pa re nts fi le d su it fo r ne g lig e nc e a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nts

. When the acc ident was reported to Mid-Ce ntury , the plaintiff denie d cover ag e base d on the following exclusion:

“We do not cover

bodily injury

... which arises from or during the
course of business pursuits of an insure d... or (4) result s fr om the leg al liabilityof any

insured bec ause of

home car e ser vices provide d to any person on a re g ular ba sis... Regula r basis mea ns more than 20 hour s per we ek.”
At the time of the incident, it is uncontra dicted that Mrs. Virg inia Wil liams ke pt her four g randc hildren while he r daug hter wa s at wor k

. M rs. W illiams was rec eiving $300.00 per month for these service s from Southwest Resources, a Depa rtment of Human Servic es fac ility

. I t is also uncontra dicted that these four g randc hildren we re living in Mrs. Will iams’s home, along with her daug hter. Mrs. W illiams’s husband didno t kn ow that Mr s. Willi a ms w a s r e c e ivi ng the pay me nt f ro m So uth we st.
B e fo re the Cou rt

c a n ma ke fu rthe r f

ind ing s, Mr s. Willi a ms’ te sti mon y mus t be re solved. She g ave two de positions, as well as her te stimonyat trial. He r tes t i m o n y at trial wa s thoroug hly contra dicted by

her state ments made in her depositions. During her de positions, s he made statements to the eff ect that she took
car e of de cede nt on a re g ular ba sis, charg ed a fix ed fee for her service s, and that the service s beg an six to eigh t m o n t h s p rior to the ac cident. At trial, she c ontradicte d those previous state m en t s , claiming she wa s upset and could not re member he r answe rs at the de positions. I nitially , i t would appea r that she should be discr edited
a s a wi tne ss. Ho we ve r, the Cou rt , u po n f urthe r refl ectio n, is c on vin c e d th a t Mr s. Willi a ms i s o ve rc ome wi th g ri e f f or the de a th o f this c hil d. She app e ars to h old herse lf responsible f

or the a ccide nt. She had left the y oung ch i l d alone while two other c hildren we re bathi n g. I t is the Court’s impression that Mrs. W illiams’s state me nts , n ot o nly

in h e r d e po sit ion s, bu t a lso a t tria l, c arry ve ry lit tle we ig ht.
THEREFO RE, THE COURT MAKES THE F OLL OWI NG F I NDING: (1 ) Th e de c e de nt w a s n ot a famil y me mbe r o f the Willi a ms. (2) That the a

rra ng ement for

Mrs. Wil liams to l o o k afte r the de cede nt beg an in late Aug ust and lasted until the dece dent’s death. (3) That the c hild would be dropped of f at Mrs. Williams’s home, and would later be picked up by another baby sitter. (4) This arrang ement with M rs
. Wil liams beg an whe n one of the mother’s other

baby sitters became unavailable at various tim es. Prior to t his arra ng ement with Mrs. Will iams, the mother depe nded upon thr e e oth e r b aby sit te rs
. (5 ) Th is a

rr a ng e me nt l a ste d f

or six w e e ks

.-6- (6 ) Th a t th e tot a l a mou nt o f c omp e ns a tio n re c e ive d b y Mr s. Willi a ms wa s a pp ro xim ate ly$2 5. Th e mon e y wa s g ive n b y

the mothe r t o de fr a y e xpe ns e s. Th is w a s n ot an a rr a ng e me nt f

or pr of it. (7) That the de cede nt stay ed with Mrs. Will iams on or about seven times during this period. (8) The mother ne ver c alled Mrs. Wil liams in advance to inform her that sh e wa s b ri ng ing the c hil d. She simply le ft the c hil d at Mr s. Willi a ms’ s h ome e arl y in the mornin g , u nti l a no the r b aby sitte r c ou ld pick the child up.
B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , th e Cou rt c on c lud e s th a t th e arr a ng e me nt w it hM r s
. Willi a ms and the dece dent’s pare nts w as an informa l type of ba by sitti ng . This baby sitti ng was not performed in conjunction w ith Mrs. W illiams’s childcare of her four g randc hildren for

which she r ece i v ed compensation. Mrs. W illiams was not motivated in making a

profit by keeping the dec ede n t ; her motive wa s more fr om love and/or f

avor to de cede nt’s mother. The plaintiff has failed to prove by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that de fe nd a nt’ s r e la tio ns hip or arr a ng e me nt with th e de c e de nt w a s p art of a bu sin e ss pursuant to a home c are service provided on a reg ular ba sis. WHEREFORE, THE COURT F I NDS in favor of the def endant, in that the exclusion of the home owner s policy is not applicable.
I t is the trial court’s judg ment in favor of Appellee s, the Wil liams es , t h at forms the ba sis of the pr e se nt a pp e a l.
III. ISS UE Appellant pre sents the following issue for r eview:
Whe t her the trial court c ommitt ed re versible e rror in awar ding the Def endants/Appe llees cove rag e under their Specia l Fo rm Homeowne r’s Insuranc e Policy , issued by Plaintiff/Appellant Mid-Century I nsuranc e Company under policy no. 66918971129, for the w rong ful death of a minor child in their home.

IV . STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW
Since this c ase was tried by the court sitti ng without a jury , we r eview the case de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness of the findi n gs o f fact by the trial court. Unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the trial court's f indings, we must affirm, a bsent err or of law

. See Tenn. R.App. P. 13(d). We further note that when the r esolution of the issues in a ca se depe nds upon the truth fu lne ss of wi tne sse s, the tr ia l judg e wh o ha s the op po rtun ity to o bs e rv e the wi tne sse s in the ir-7-

ma nn e r andde me a no r w hil e te sti fying is i n a far b ett er po sition than th is C ou rt to d e c ide tho se issues. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp. , 910 S .W.2d 412, 415 (Tenn.1995) ; Whit aker v. Whitaker , 957 S .W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn.Ap p.1997)

. The weig ht, f aith, and cre dit to be g iven to any wi t n es s 's testi m o n y l i es i n the first instance with the trier of fac t, and the cr edibilityacc orded w ill be give n great weig ht by

the appe llate court. Id. ; In re Est ate of Wa lto n v . Young , 9 5 0 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn.1997) . H ow e ve r, in r e vie wi ng do c ume nta ry pr oo f s uc h a s d e po sit ionte sti mon y , “ a ll impressions of weig ht and cr edibilityare draw n from the contents of the evidence , and not from the appea ranc e of wi t n es s es and ora l testimonyat trial.” We lls v . T e nne sse e Boa rd

of Re ge nts , 9 S.W.3d 779, 783-784 (Tenn . 1999)

. As a result, appellate courts may make an in d ep en d ent assessment of the cre dibilit y of the doc umentary

proof it re views, without aff ording defe renc e to the trial court' s findings. See Corcoran v

. Foster Auto G MC, In c. , 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn .1988)

. This rule i s premised on the fact that appe llate courts are in just as g ood a position as the trial court to judge the credibility of wit nesses who provided the proof

. See Elm ore v. Trav elers Ins. Co. , 824 S.W.2d 541, 544 (Tenn .1992)

. V. AN AL YSI S
I n this appeal we must det er m i n e whether the trial court erre d in concluding that Petey ’s death wa s cover ed

u n d e r the Willi amses’ home owner ’s insuranc e policy . Mid-Century contends that there are two provisions in the homeowner ’s p olicy that exclude cover ag e for Petey ’s death, and contends th at t h e t rial court erre d in finding that Appellant fa iled to show, by a pre ponderance of evidenc e, that Petey ’s death oc curr ed in circ umstances unde r which c overa g e is excluded. The Wil liamses argue t h at M i d-Century failed to mee t its burden of proof and that the tria l court’s jud g me nt r e ste d u po n a

c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n a ndsh ou ld n ot b e dis tur be d b y thi s c ou rt

. A. The e xc lusi ons fro mpe r so nal lia bili ty r e lie d upon by M id- Ce nt ur y in se e king to de ny cover age for P ete y’s death Mid-Century

I nsuranc e Company

contends that two e x clusions c o n ta in e d in th eh o meowner s policy purcha sed by

the Will iamses a re ap p l i ca ble in excluding cove rag e for Petey ’s death. The scope of persona l liabilit y

cover ag e provided by the pol icy is set out in the following provision of the c on tr a c t:
Cover age E — P ersonal Liabi lity We pay those damag es which an insu red be c ome s le g a lly ob lig a te d to pay be c a us e of bodi ly inju ry or property dam age r e s u lt in g f r o m an o ccurrence to w hic h th is
c ov e ra g e app lie s. At our expense and w ith attorney s of our choice , we will de fend an insu red a g a ins t any cover ed cla im or suit. W e ar e not obligated to pay defen s e costs, including attorney s’ fe es of a ny

cla i m o r s uit where y ou selec t an attorne y not chosen by

us beca use there is a dispute betwee n y ou and us over cover ag e. We may investigate and-8-

se ttl e a ny c la im o r s uit

that w e c on sid e r p ro pe r. Ou r o bli g a tio n to de fe nda ny c la im
o r s u i te n d s o n c e w e h a v e p a i d o u r l i m i to f l i ab i l i t y. (E mph a sis in the orig ina l.) B othof the e xclu sio ns re lie d u po n b y Ap pe lla nt a

re ex clu si on s to thi s pe rs on a l li abil ity

c ov e ra g e . T he fi rs t e xclu sio n M id- Ce ntu ry re lie s u po n r e a ds a s f

oll ow s: Applyi ng to Cover age E — P ersonal Liabi lity
We do not cover:
1. L iability of an insu r e d a ssu me d un de r a ny c on tr a c t or

a g re e me nt r e la tin g to a busi ne ss of an insu red . L iabilityof pe r so ns other than a n insu red assumed under any contra ct or ag ree ment, wh et her busi ne ss or non-business, is not
cover ed. L iability of any ag ree ment betwee n an insu red and a c orporation or association of pr operty

owner s is not covere d. (E mph a sis in the orig ina l.) Th e se c on d e xclu sio n M id- Ce ntu ry re lie s u po n r e a ds a s f

oll ow s: Applyi ng to Cover age E and F — P ersonal Liabi lity and Me dical Paym ents to Others
We do not cover bodi ly inju ry or property dam age which:
1. Arises fr om or during the cour se of busi ne ss pursuits of an insu red

. 2. Results fr om the rende ring or failure t o rende r busi ne ss or prof essional
se rv ic e s. 3.

... 4

. R e s u l t s f

r o m t h e l e g a l l i ab i l i t y o f

a n y insu red beca

use of home c are service s p r o v i d e d t o a n y person on a re g ular ba sis by or at the dire ction of: a. any insured b

. a n y e m p l o ye e o f

a n y insu red
c. an yother pe r so n a c tu a ll y o r ap p ar e n tl y

a c ti n g o n b e h a lf

o f any insu red

. Reg ular ba sis means more than 20 hour s per we ek. This exclusi on does not apply to: a
. h o m e c ar e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d t o t h e r e l a t i v e s o f a n y insu red ; b

. o c c a s i o n a l o r p ar t t i m e h o m e c ar e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y a n y insu red under 21 y ear s of ag e. (E mph a sis in the orig ina l.) I t is app are nt that, und e r the se e xclu sio ns , co ve ra g e fo r P e te y ’s de a th w ill be excluded if Ms. Will iams’s liabilityfor his death were :A l t h o u g h d o c u m e n t s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l d o n o t s p e c i f y w h i c h c h i l d r e n ’ s c a r e t h e A F DC 2
pay men t s pe r t a i n e d t o , t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l p e r s u a d e s u s t h a t t h e s e p a y m e n t s p e r t a i n e d o n l y t o M s
. W i l l i a m s c a r e f or (c o n tinu e d ...) -9- 1. “assumed unde r any contra ct or a g ree ment relating to a busine ss of an insured,” 2. “ [ar os e ] fr om o r d uring the c ou rs e of bu sin e ss pursuits of an insured,” or 3. “[r]esult[ ed] from the l ega l l i ability of any insured bec ause of

home ca re service s provided to any person on a reg ular basis by or at the di rec tion of ... any insured.” Having established the terms of the exclusions relied upon by Mid-Century , we now pr ocee d to r e vie w the fa c t- fi nd ing s th a t pr ov ide d a ba sis fo r the tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud g me nt.
B. The trial court’ s fi ndi ngs of fact
A fierc ely contested issue at trial was the prec ise nature of the child ca re ar ra n g ement betwee n Ms. Wi lliams a nd Ms. Futrell. Ms. Williams sought to char acte rize the arr ang ement as a n inf orma l on e in w hic h sh e c are d fo r Pe te y a s a fa vo r t o M s. F utr e ll a ndma int a ine d th a t sh e wa s p a id
on ly a sma ll amo un t of mon e y to r e imb ur se he r f or he r e xpe ns e s. Con fr on te d w ith e arl ie r s ta te me nts , particula rly her statements in her Mar ch 11, 2002 deposition in which she se emed to sug g est she wa s reg ularly paid the amount of $60 per we ek to ca re f or Petey and Quisha, Ms. Willi ams explained that
s h e h a d , i n f

a c t , o n l y expe cted to be paid $60 a w eek and that Ms. Futre ll never a ctually paid her that amount. She also repudiated her statements in her e arlier

testimonyin which s he had sugg ested that she had c are d for Petey

and Quisha on a daily basis. Ms. Williams a ccounte d for these discr epanc ies by e xpla ini ng that sh e ha d b e e n ve ry up se t whe n g ivi ng the de po sit ion te sti mon y a nd c ou ld n ot r e c a ll what she ha d said then. Mid-Century

contends that the appar ent discrepancies in Ms. Wil liams’s deposition and trial te sti mon y are e vid e nc e of

de lib e rate de c e pti on a nd c oll us ion be tw e e n he rs e lf a ndPe te y ’s pa re nts

. Mid-Century

maintains that Ms. W illiams chang ed her testimonyafte r t h e Mar ch 11, 2002 de po sit ion be c a us e sh e le arn e d th a t Mi d- Ce ntu ry wa s li ke ly

to d e ny any

c la im f or Pe te y ’s de a th
un de r the bu sin e ss pur su it an d home c are e xclu sio ns to p e rs on a l li abil ity c ov e ra g e in the Willi a ms homeowner s policy

. Mid-Century urg es this Court to c onclude that the evidenc e pr eponder ates a g a ins t th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fa c t- fi nd ing s.
As stated in Section I V, su pr a , we presume the trial court’s finding s of fac t to be corr ect a nd wi ll no t dis tur

b the m un le ss the e vid e nc e , a s re fl e c te d in the re c or d o n a pp e a l, p re po nd e rate s a g a ins t these finding s of fa ct. I n this case, we ag ree with Mid-Century that the evidenc e preponderates a g a ins t th e tr ia l c ourt’ s f

a c t- fi nd ing in this c a se , p art ic ula rl y the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that th e c hil d
car e ar rang ement under

which Petey

died was not a n arr ang ement for profit. The r ecor d shows that Ms. Wi ll i am s h ad rec eived AF DC pay ments of appr ox imately $300 a month for the c hildcare service s she performed f or her daug hter Reg ina’s childre n. There was a lso a preponde ranc e of 2(

. . . con t i n u ed) 2 R e g ina ’s ch ild re n , no t t o P e te y a n d Q u ish a
.

A t t ri al , M s. Futr el l t est i f i ed t hat s he p ai d M s. W i l l i am s no m o re t han $ 2 5 or $ 3 0 duri ng t he ent i re 3 peri od f r om Au g u s t of 20 01 t o t h e t i me of Pe t e y ’ s de a t h

. M s
. Fu t r e l l f u r t h e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t M s
. W i l l i a ms kept P et ey ap p ro xim ately sev en t i m es. M s. F utrell refused t o ch ara cterize he r relati o n sh ip w i t h M s. W i l l i am s as a b usiness rel at i o nshi p , but sai d , “ M rs
. W i l l i am s [was] do i ng m e a f avo r. ” B al anci n g th is te stimo ny agai nst t he very dif ferent
ac co un t M s. W i l l i am s gav e in he r M arc h 2 0 0 2 d ep o si tio n, we co nc l ud e that t he ev i d en ce p rep o nd era t es a ga i nst M s. F u tre ll’ s a c c o u n t. -10- evidence that Ms. Wi lliams had rec eived r eg ular pa y ments of $60 per wee k as compe nsation for keeping Petey

and Q u is h a
. A lt

h oug h the AF DC pay ments were not compensation for Ms. Wi lliams’s
ca ri n g fo r P etey

and Quisha, w e believe the AF DC pay ments, coupled with her expectation of compensation by

Ms. Futre ll for kee ping Pete y and Quisha, he lp to r evea l Ms. W illiams’s mot ive in performing suc h service s. We conclude that the evidence preponder ates ag ainst the trial court’s finding of fa ct that this arra ng ement wa s not conducted f or prof it, and we revise the trial court’s fa ct fi nd ing to r e fl e c t th a t Ms . Wil lia ms d id c on du c t th is a rr a ng e me nt f

or pr of it. 3
We also conclude that the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the tri al co u rt ’s fa ct finding
conce rning the duration and frequenc y of Ms

. Wil liams’s caring for P etey

. In her March 11, 2002 deposition testimony , Ms. Wi lliams testified that the arr ang ement beg an in Fe bruary or ea rly Marc h of 2001. She further testified, at differ ent points in t he same deposition, that she kept Petey Monday throug h Friday

of eve ry wee k. We conclude that this t estimony is credible and that the evidenc e sug g ests strong ly that Ms. Wil liams eng ag ed in deliber ate obf uscation in her later testimony in an eff ort to avoid the conse quence s of the business pursuit and home car e service exclusions t hat wer e re l i ed u p o n b y

M i d -C en t u ryi n i t s d ec l ar at o ry j u d gm en t ac t i o n
. W e re v i s e t h e tri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs of fa ct on the durati o n an d fre quency of the c hildcare arr ang ement under which Petey

died; we
c on c lud e that th e arr a ng e me nt l a ste d a pp ro xima te ly

se ve n mo nth s, a ndthat for muchof that ti me Ms. Willi a ms k e pt P e te y

a ll d a y , o n a

da ily ba sis e xclu din g Sa tur day s a ndSun day s.
Whi l e i t is not inconceivable that Ms. Wi lliams would be so upset at her Ma rch 2002 deposition that she was una ble to g ive a c ohere nt acc ount of t he events leading up to and including Petey ’s death, there w as such striking detail and spe cificity in her Mar ch 2002 testimony , conce rning the pa y me nt a

rr a ng e me nts , d ur a tio n, a nd fr e qu e nc y of he r c hil d c are arr a ng e me nt w ith Ms. F utr e ll, that w e c on c lud e the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d infaili ng to g ive thi s tes tim on y g re a t we ig ht. Th e Willi a mse s’
c onten ti on, th a t he r s ta te me nts ha d li ttl e or no c re dib ili ty

du e to h e r e mot ion a l st a te , s tr ike s th is Court as implausible, g iven the highly detailed and nuanc ed ac count of the c hildcare arr ang ement that she g ave in he r t estimony

. The testim ony of Ms

. Futre ll at t rial does not, in our estimation, car ry a s mu c h w e ig h t a s M s
. Wi ll iams ’ s M ar c h 2 0 0 2 te s ti mo n y , g iv e n th e r e lati v e p r o xim it y intime of Ms. Wi lliams’s testimonyto Petey ’s trag ic death.
C. Interpre tation of the home own ers insurance policy-11-

Ou r c on c lus ion that Ms . Wil lia ms w a s mo tiv a te d b y pr of it i n c ari ng fo r P e te y

do e s n ot, in itself, resolve the question of whethe r coverag e for Petey ’s death is excluded from the homeow ners policy at issue in this ca se. It is possi ble that Ms. Wil liams’s activities, even if she we re motivated by profit, neve rtheless did not constitute a business pursuit or home c are service under the terms of the exclusions relied upon by Mid-Century , and ther efor e would not pre clude co v era g e under the po lic y . We are re qu ir e d to int e rp re t th e c on tr a c t to de te rm ine wh e the r i t app lie s to the fa c ts o f this
case , in light of our c onclusion that the ev i d en ce preponde rate s ag ainst some of the trial c ourt’s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t. I n construing insurance contra cts, this Court is oblig ated to attempt to determine the intent of the c on tr a c tin g pa

rt ie s, a ndbe c a us e the po lic y was dr a ft e d b y

the ins ur a nc e c omp a ny , w e mus t resolve any

ambig uity

and doubt in favor

of the insure d. NSA DBA Be n ef i t P l a n , Inc. v. Conn ecticut Gen. Life Ins. C o. , 968 S.W.2d 7 9 1 (T en n . App.1997 ). Where the lang uag e of an insurance policy

is rea sonably susceptible of two meaning s, we are obligate d to givethe particular lang uag e the inter

pretation most favor able to the insure d. Id
. at 795. Ambig uity in a contra ct is doubt
o r u n c e r t a i n t y ar i s i n g f

r o mt h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f

t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e b e i n g f a i r l y u n d e r s t o o d i n m o r e w a ys than one. Id
. We c on c lud e that th e la ng ua g e of the c on tr a c t is no t a mbi g uo us . O ur ta sk , th en, is t o de te rm ine wh e the r the c hil dc are arr a ng e me nt un de r wh ic h Pe te y die d c on sti tut e d a bu sin e ss p ur su it or home car e s er vice a s provided in the exclusions relied upon by Mid-Century . I n determining whether the childcar e arr ang ement was a business pursuit, w e are g uided by the re asoning of anothe r p an el o f t h is Court in t he ca se of Allst ate v. Godse

y , No. 03A01-9107C V243, 1991 WL 261873 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 1991) . In d e c idi ng wh e the r a sim ila r e xclu sio n b arr e d c ov e ra g e fo r the los s of a boat, this c ourt in Godsey c ite s with app ro va l th e ma jority ru le that “ a

pu rs uit is a bu sin e ss o nly if (1) the re is a motive f

or prof it AND (2) it is continued or r eg ular a ctivity .” Id. at *3.
We h a ve c on c lud e d th a t th e c hil dc are arr a ng e me nt b e tw e e n M s. Willi a ms andMs. F utr e ll was motivated by

profit. We further

conclude that it was a c ontinued or re g ular a ctivity , in view of
our re vis i o n o f t h e t rial court’s fac t findings c oncerning the duration and f reque ncy of the
arr a ng e me nt. We the re fo re ho ld that the c hil dc are arr a ng e me nt a t iss ue in thi s c a se wa s a bu sin e ss pursuit, and that the trial c ourt err ed in con cluding that the business pursuit exclusion i n the homeowner s policy

did not bar covera ge i n t his case. We f urther c onclude that the a rra ng ement constituted a home c are service within the meaning of the home car e exclusion in the homeowne rs policy at issue her e, and that the trial court e rre d in concluding that the hom e ca re e x clusion did not bar c overa g e her e.
VI . C ON CL USI ON
For the foreg oing rea sons, the j udg ment of t he trial court is reve rsed. W e hold that both the business pursuit ex clusion and the home c are serv ice e x clusion bar c overa g e by the homeowne rs insurance policy

at issue in this case. Cost s are assessed to the A ppellees, V irg inia and Jerry Willi a ms.-12- __________________________________________ W. F RANK CR A WF O R D , PR E S I D I N G JUDG E, W.S.