Court Opinion

ID: 9902101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 22:09:12.975011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:45.489529
License: Public Domain

11/22/2023
                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                               AT KNOXVILLE
                                     November 20, 2023 Session

      TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE v. WILLIAM MAX
                           RIDEN

                      Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County
                         No. 20C282          Kyle E. Hedrick, Judge
                          ___________________________________

                                 No. E2023-00932-COA-R3-CV
                             ___________________________________

The notice of appeal filed by the appellant, William Max Riden, stated that appellants were
appealing the judgment entered on May 24, 2023. As the order appealed from does not
constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

                   Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II., J.; JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J.; and KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.

Bryan H. Hoss, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Max Riden.

Michael R. Campbell, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tennessee Farmers
Mutual Insurance Company (Columbia Ofc).

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION1

       The appellant, William Max Riden (“Appellant”), filed a notice of appeal with this Court
on June 22, 2023, which states that Appellant is appealing the May 24, 2023 order of the Hamilton
County Circuit Court (“trial court”). In the May 24, 2023 order within the record, the trial
court granted partial summary judgment determining that the defendant’s act of shooting
the driver of another vehicle was an “intentional act” and, therefore, excluded from
1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides:

          This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse
          or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion
          would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it
          shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not
          be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
coverage under the insurance policy. However, the trial court denied summary judgment
as to the claim regarding whether the defendant’s act of leaving the scene in his automobile
is excluded under the insurance policy as a matter of law, finding that “there are several
remaining questions of fact with respect to claims arising from the operation of the truck.”
As such, Appellant’s claim regarding whether the defendant’s act of leaving the scene of
the incident qualifies as an “intentional act” under the insurance policy remains pending.

       Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the Court directed the appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after it became clear that there was no final
judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. Appellant failed to respond to this
Court’s show cause order.

        “A final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing
else for the trial court to do.’” In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn.
2003) (quoting State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App.
1997)). This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal as of
right if there is no final judgment. See Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559
(Tenn. 1990) (“Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by
statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only.”).

       “Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction
over final orders.” Foster-Henderson v. Memphis Health Center, Inc., 479 S.W.3d 214,
222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). As the order appealed from does not constitute a final
appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is
hereby dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, William Max Riden, for
which execution may issue.

                                                          PER CURIAM

                                             -2-