 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Grimes11/8/2004
Lawrence and Janet Grimes, the named insureds under an Allstate Deluxe Homeowner's Insurance Policy, appeal the award of summary judgment in favor of Allstate.
This action arises out of a shooting at the home of Lawrence and Janet Grimes. Wesley Grimes, their adult son who lived with his parents, invited his former girlfriend, Melissa Yarbrough, to his parents' home so the two could talk about their relationship. Following a conversation in the driveway of the Grimes' residence, Wesley Grimes shot and seriously injured Ms. Yarbrough. She survived the shooting and filed the underlying tort action against Wesley Grimes and his parents alleging inter alia that Lawrence and Janet Grimes failed to render aid to her after the shooting. Lawrence and Janet Grimes notified Allstate of the suit and requested that it provide a defense and coverage pursuant to the Allstate Deluxe Homeowner's Insurance Policy. Allstate denied coverage and filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the Grimes had no coverage and that Allstate had no duty to defend an action brought by Ms. Yarbrough because she was seeking damages resulting from the intentional and criminal acts of an insured, their son Wesley.
Allstate moved for and was awarded summary judgment. In granting summary judgment, the trial court held that the policy excluded coverage for intentional and criminal acts by an insured and that Allstate had no duty to defend Lawrence and Janet Grimes in reference to the civil action brought by Melissa Yarbrough for injuries suffered as a result of being shot by Wesley Grimes.
The issue is whether there is coverage and thus a duty to defend Lawrence and Janet Grimes with regard to the allegations in Ms. Yarbrough's complaint that they failed to render aid to her after she was shot by their son Wesley.
An appellate court's review of a motion for summary judgment is governed by well settled standards. Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tenn. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party establishes "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a judgment may be rendered as a matter of law." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04; see also Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this court must examine the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must discard all countervailing evidence. Mooney v. Sneed, 30 S.W.3d 304, 305-06 (Tenn. 2000); Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210-211 (Tenn. 1993). Moreover, this court's review of the trial court's summary judgment ruling is de novo with no presumption of correctness. McNabb v. Highways, Inc., 98 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tenn. 2003).
The following policy provisions are pertinent to this appeal:
Definitions Used In This Policy
1. "You" or "your" - means the person named on the Policy Declarations as the insured and that person's resident spouse.
2. "Allstate," "we," "us," or "our" - means the company named on the Policy Declarations.
3. "Insured person(s)" - means you and, if a resident of your household:
a) Any relative; and
b) any dependent in your care.
Insuring Agreement
The terms of this policy impose joint obligations on persons defined as an insured person. This means that the responsibilities, acts and failures to act of a person defined as an insured person will be binding upon another person defined as an insured person.
Losses We Do Not Cover Under Coverage X:
1. We do not cover any bodily injury or property damage int
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|