 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hostetler7/28/2000
a policy of insurance. The rules for such a scenario are well settled and provide the resolution of the present case. Where the ambiguous language limits the coverage of an insurance policy, as it does in the present case, that language must be construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured. See Tata, 848 S.W.2d at 650 (citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tenn. 1991); Purdy v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 586 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). Accordingly, we find that the "bad dog" exclusion does not apply to the dogs acquired after the exclusion was placed on the policy.
In conclusion, we agree with the trial court that the intentional acts exclusion is not applicable in the present case. However, we find that the "bad dog" exclusion does not apply to Max and Maxine, the dogs acquired after the exclusion was added. As such, to the extent that those dogs were involved in the attack on Mattie Lee Drake, Tennessee Farmers must perform its obligations under Hostetler's policy of insurance.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company is reversed. We remand the case with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the appellant, James D. Drake, consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellee, Tennessee Farmers, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|