Opinion ID: 1057787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sherer v. Linginfelter

Text: The Greens first cite to this Court's holding in Sherer that the uninsured motorist coverage provisions are for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover compensatory damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury. Sherer, 29 S.W.3d at 454 (citing Tenn.Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(a)) (emphasis added). As the Greens reason, because the amounts they received from the Settlement are not from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles, it would be contrary to the intent of the General Assembly to allow State Farm to offset its liability by those amounts. We disagree. In Sherer , this Court held, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 56-7-1201(a) and -1204 (2000), that an uninsured motorist carrier's subrogation rights are limited to only those injuries for which the provider made payment to the insured. 29 S.W.3d at 454. More specifically, the Greens argue that the Sherer Court did not allow the uninsured motorist carrier to limit its liability by the amounts the insured received from a non-motorist tortfeasor. Id. However, the Greens' reliance on Sherer is misplaced. First, Sherer dealt with an insurer's subrogation rights pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-1204. [12] Id. The instant case does not involve subrogation; therefore, section 1204 is not applicable. Second, Sherer dealt with damages recoverable in a products liability action for enhanced injuries. [13] Id. at 453. Such injuries are not at issue in the instant case. For these reasons, Sherer is not helpful to our resolution of this case. Instead, we find this Court's holding in Poper ex rel. Poper v. Rollins, 90 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn.2002), to be dispositive. In Poper , a motorist died from injuries she sustained in a multi-vehicle accident. The decedent's husband filed wrongful death actions against the drivers of the vehicles involved and a products liability suit against the manufacturer of the decedent's automobile, General Motors Corporation (GM). Similar to the facts in the case presently before this Court, the decedent's husband entered into settlement agreements with several defendants. Specifically, the husband received $130,000.00 from all but one of the drivers involved in the accident and $400,000.00 from GM, a non-motorist defendant. The remaining defendant, who had a liability limit of $10,000.00 under his automobile insurance policy, offered to settle through his insurer for the full policy amount. Rejecting the offer, decedent's husband filed suit against his wife's uninsured motorist carrier arguing that it was liable for the amount by which its limits on uninsured motorist liability ($100,000.00) exceeded the limits of liability under [the defendant's] insurance policy ($10,000.00). Id. at 683. The uninsured motorist carrier, however, denied liability arguing that it had no further obligation under the policy because the amounts the decedent's husband received from the settlements ($530,000.00) exceeded the limits of liability under the policy ($100,000.00). The trial court and Court of Appeals agreed with the uninsured motorist carrier and held that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-1201(d) (2000), the total settlement recovery received by [decedent's husband] could be used to offset [the uninsured motorist carrier's] liability under the uninsured motorist policy. Id. at 684 (emphasis omitted). On appeal, this Court held that the uninsured motorist statutes unambiguously allow an uninsured motorist insurance carrier to limit its liability by offsetting ` all liability and/or primary uninsured motorist insurance polices, bonds, and securities applicable to the bodily injury or death of the insured.' Id. at 685 (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(d)) (emphasis in original). Moreover, this Court held that the system of comparative fault, as adopted in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn.1992), did not affect the unambiguous language of these statutes. Id. at 687; see Erwin v. Rose, 980 S.W.2d 203, 207 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (stating that [w]hile McIntyre v. Balentine did abolish joint liability, we do not think it changed the statutes that govern uninsured-underinsured motorist insurance or the private contract policy provisions that have been consistently construed to give the insurance company the credit it seeks). When dealing with statutory construction, this Court is `to ascertain and give effect to' the legislative purpose without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope. Poper, 90 S.W.3d at 684 (citing Mooney, 30 S.W.3d at 306). It is not for this Court to question the wisdom of a statutory scheme, but instead, to construe and apply the law as written. Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn.1993). We determine legislative intent by applying the natural and ordinary meaning of the language without forcing or conjuring an interpretation that expands or limits its application. Id. Moreover, this Court presume[s] that the legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tenn.2000) (quoting BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Greer, 972 S.W.2d 663, 673 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1997)). The language of the uninsured motorist statutes was unambiguous at the time Poper was decided, and it is unambiguous now. The General Assembly has made no distinction between motorist and non-motorist tortfeasors in determining what offsets uninsured motorist carriers are entitled to receive. Contrary to the Greens' argument that there should be a distinction between monies received from owners and operators of uninsured motorist vehicles as compared to non-motorist tortfeasors, subsection 56-7-1201(d) specifically entitles uninsured motorist carriers to limit their liability by the sum of the limits collectible under all liability and/or primary uninsured motorist insurance policies, bonds, and securities applicable to the bodily injury or death of the insured. Tenn.Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(d) (emphasis added). Therefore, applying the plain meaning of section 56-7-1201(d) to this case, State Farm clearly and unambiguously is allowed to offset any amounts the Greens received from the Settlement against the amounts owed under the Policy. And, because the Greens' settlement proceeds were equal to or greater than State Farm's limit of liability under the Policy, State Farm has no remaining liability. Accordingly, the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly granted State Farms' motion for summary judgment. Although our holding in Poper was predicated on our finding that the uninsured motorist statutes are unambiguous, any doubt as to the intended meaning of the statutes was removed by the General Assembly subsequent to its release. In 1999, the legislature amended the uninsured motorist statutes by adding several subsections to section 56-7-1206. Act of June 17, 1999, 1999 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 506, § 1. Included in these subsections is the following language: The uninsured motorist insurance carrier shall be entitled to credit for the total amount of damages collected by the insured from all parties alleged to be liable for the bodily injury or death of the insured whether obtained by settlement or judgment and whether characterized as compensatory or punitive damages. Tenn.Code Ann. § 56-7-1206(i) (2000) (emphasis added). While this Court has never previously addressed the intent or stated purpose of this subsection, in our view, the language is clear and unambiguous. [14] Uninsured motorist coverage providers are entitled to a credit [15] for the total amount of damages collected by the insured from all parties alleged to be liable. . . . Id. (emphasis added). In adding this language, the legislature reiterated that there is to be no distinction between motorist and non-motorist tortfeasors in determining what credits uninsured motorist carriers are entitled to receive. Again, contrary to the Greens' argument that there should be a distinction between monies received from owners and operators of uninsured motorist vehicles as compared to non-motorist tortfeasors, subsection (i) specifically entitles uninsured motorist carriers to offset the amounts due under the uninsured motor vehicle policy provisions by the total amount of damages collected by the insured from all parties alleged to be liable. Id. (emphases added). Moreover, this subsection explicitly states that the total amount leading to a credit includes monies from settlements or judgments, whether characterized as compensatory or punitive. Id. Therefore, applying the plain meaning of section 56-7-1206(i) to this case, even in the absence of subsection 56-7-1201(d), State Farm clearly and unambiguously is allowed to offset any amounts the Greens received from the Settlement against the amounts owed under the Policy.