### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE N ove m be r 14, 200 5 S es sio n TENNES SEE FARMERS L IFE RE ASSURANCE COMPANY

v. LI NDA S. ROSE, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Mor gan Coun ty No. 03-196 F rank V. Willi am s, III, Chan cellor

No. E2005-00006-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MARCH 17, 2006

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., dissenting


### .

I respe ctfully

dissent from majority ’s dec ision t o af fi rm the Trial Court’s g rant of su mma ry jud g me nt. I

wo uldre ve rs e the Tria l Co urt’ s g rant o f s umm ary jud g me nt. I concur completely

with the majority ’s statements both of the fa cts and of the law applicable to these fa cts. I ag ree with the majorit y ’s statement that “the lang uag e of the power of attorney g overns a s to whether Ms. Rose pos sessed the authority to chang e the be nefic iary desig nation on the dec ease d’s life insura nce policy .” Likewise, I ag ree with the majority

that “[t] he lang uag e of the dece ased’ s power of attorney clea rly and unambig uously

rec ites the power s of the attorney in fac t with respec t to the dece ased’ s life insuranc e.” T he langua g e of the decease d’s power of a tto rn e y c on tr ols a ndthat app lic able la ng ua g e is: to transac t all insurance business on my behalf , to apply

for or continue policies, c ollect profits, file c lai m s , make de mands, enter into compromise and settl ement ag ree ments, file suits or actions and take a ny oth e r a c tio n n e c e ssa

ry or pr op e r i n th is r e g ard ; Where I differ with the majority is w ith its ultimate conclusion that the lang uag e of the dec ease d’s power

of attorne y

did not include the power to chang e the be nefici ar y o n the de c e a se d’ s li fe ins ur a nc e po lic y . I be liev e that “ a ll i ns ur a nc e bu sin e ss” me a ns jus t w hat it sa y s. L ike wi se , I

be lie ve that “ take a ny

oth e r a c tio n n e c e ssa

ry or pr op e r i n th is r e g ard
. . .” a lso me a ns jus t what it say s. The wor d “all” me ans one hundr ed per cent a nd does not m ean “ most” or “some”
. L ikewis e, I

think the word “any ” as use d here also means one hundred pe rce nt of the ac tions-2-

n e c e s s ar y o r

p r o p e r t o tr a n s a c tt h e d e c e a s e d ’ s i n s u r a n c e b u s i n e s s . A s u s e d i n t h i s p o w e r o f a t t o r n e y, “all” and “any ” ar e interc hang eable
.

I ag ree with the majority ’s statement that “[w]e cannot read into t he powe r of attorney that which is not there.” Howeve r, I also believe the conve rse to be tr ue in that we c annot re ad out of the powe r of attorney

that which is there
. The decea sed’s power of attorney specific ally

g rante d Ms. Rose the power to tr ansac t “ all insurance business” and to “ take any other a ction nece ssary

or pr op e r in this re g ard
. . . . ” A c ha ng e of the be ne fi c iary

on a lif e ins ur a nc e po lic y

is m os t c e rt a inl y an ac tion “to transac t. . . insurance business. . . .”

For these re asons, I

believe the Trial Court er red in g ranting summary

judgme nt on the g ro un ds re lie d o n b y the Tria l Court. I wo uldre ve rs e Tria l Co urt’ s g rant o f s umm ary jud g me nt, and for this reason re spectfully

dissent from the majority ’s opinion.

___________________________________ D. MI CHAEL

SW I NEY, JUDGE