State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Brian Howard ( 2000 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
AT KNOXVILLE
FILED
January 31, 2000
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
E1999-02558-COA-R3-CV
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ) BLOUNT COUNTY
INSURANCE COMPANY ) 03A01-9905-CV-00179
)
Plaintiff-Appellee )
)
)
v. ) HON. W. DALE YOUNG,
) JUDGE
)
BRIAN HOWARD, BARBARA CRESSE, )
AND CHARLES TOLFA, PERSONAL )
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF )
SHEILA K. TOLFA, THE ESTATE OF )
BRIDGETT WINGO, AND TERRY MORTON )
)
Defendants-Appellants ) VACATED AND REMANDED
LOUIS A. MCELROY, II AND TOBY R. CARPENTER OF KNOXVILLE FOR
APPELLANT BARBARA CRESSE
CHARLES DUNGAN OF MARYVILLE FOR APPELLANT TERRY MORTON
PAUL E. DUNN AND STEVE ERDELY, IV OF KNOXVILLE FOR APPELLEE
O P I N I O N
Goddard, P.J.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (hereinafter “State Farm”). Barbara Cresse,
Defendant-Appellant, raises the following issue, which we
restate:
Whether the trial court erred by granting summary
judgment on the grounds that Brian Howard was a
resident of Sheila Tolfa’s household at the time of the
automobile accident?
On June 18, 1994, Brian Howard was driving Sheila
Tolfa’s 1993 Chevrolet Camaro when an accident occurred. Sheila
Tolfa and her daughter, Bridgett Wingo, died from their injuries
sustained in the accident. At the time of the accident, Brian
Howard had an insurance policy in effect with State Farm.
A statement by Brian Howard was taken on November 3,
1994. Mr. Howard stated that he stayed at Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment
five or six nights a week immediately prior to the accident. Mr.
Howard stated that he spent the majority of his spare time at
Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment for three and a half months prior to the
accident. He did not pay any rent, but the telephone bill was in
his name and he paid the bill. Mr. Howard stated that Mrs. Tolfa
usually paid the utility bill, but he had given Mrs. Tolfa money
for the two months prior to the accident for the utility bill.
He paid for groceries occasionally and for gas and oil changes
for Mrs. Tolfa’s car. Mr. Howard possessed a key to Mrs. Tolfa’s
apartment and a key to her automobile. Some of Mr. Howard’s
clothes and personal care items were kept at Mrs. Tolfa’s
apartment. The remainder of his possessions were kept at his
mother’s house.
On August 13, 1997, Mr. Howard testified at his
deposition. He affirmed his prior recorded statement. Mr.
Howard testified that his bedroom furniture, weapons, dog and
snake remained at his mother’s house. He did not pay rent or any
other expenses at his mother’s house. He received most of his
mail at his mother’s house, except for Mrs. Tolfa’s telephone
bill. The telephone bill, which was registered in Mr. Howard’s
name, was sent to Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment. Mr. Howard testified
that he and Mrs. Tolfa both drove Mrs. Tolfa’s automobile. He
occasionally drove her car alone for oil changes and other
errands. Mr. Howard testified that he would ask for Mrs. Tolfa’s
permission to drive her car.
Barbara Cresse, Mrs. Tolfa’s mother, testified at her
deposition regarding the living arrangements of Mr. Howard and
Mrs. Tolfa. Mrs. Cresse testified that Mrs. Tolfa lived in a
two-bedroom apartment with her daughter, Bridgett Wingo. The
apartment was leased in Mrs. Tolfa’s name for a year.
Approximately one month prior to the accident, Mrs. Tolfa made
statements which led Mrs. Cresse to believe that Mr. Howard was
spending the weekends at Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment. Mrs. Cresse
testified that she did not think Mr. Howard spent any week nights
at Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment. After the accident, Mrs. Cresse
removed all items from Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment. Mrs. Cresse found
some of Mr. Howard’s clothes in Mrs. Tolfa’s apartment.
Lucy Bowser, Mr. Howard’s mother, testified by
deposition that Mr. Howard had a bedroom and a storage room at
her home. According to Mrs. Bowser, Mr. Howard performed
property maintenance and lawn care for her instead of paying
rent.
On February 8, 1995, State Farm filed a complaint for
declaratory relief asserting that Brian Howard was precluded from
coverage for the accident. Pursuant to the insurance contract,
Brian Howard’s coverage extended to “non-owned” cars. The
pertinent definition of a non-owned car is “a car not owned,
registered or leased by . . . any other person residing in the
same household as you.” State Farm contended that Brian Howard
and Sheila Tolfa resided in the same household at the time of the
accident. On December 3, 1998, State Farm filed a motion for
3
summary judgment. The Circuit Court found that Mr. Howard was a
resident of Mrs. Tolfa’s household and granted State Farm’s
motion for summary judgment. Mrs. Cresse and Terry Morton
pursued this appeal.
Our standard of review for a trial court’s action on a
summary judgment motion is de novo without a presumption of
correctness because our inquiry is purely a question of law.
Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995). An
evaluation of a summary judgment motion must address these
questions: “(1) whether a factual dispute exists; (2) whether the
disputed fact is material to the outcome of the case; and (3)
whether the disputed fact creates a genuine issue for trial."
Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993). The Tennessee
Supreme Court stated that the “test for a ‘genuine issue’ is
whether a reasonable jury could legitimately resolve the fact in
favor of one side or the other.” Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215. In a
motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in a
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable
inferences must be made in the nonmoving party’s favor. Byrd,
847 S.W.2d at 210. Summary judgment is appropriate if both the
facts and conclusions to be drawn from the facts permit a
reasonable person to reach only one conclusion. See Guiliano v.
Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tenn. 1999).
The Appellants claim the Circuit Court erred in
granting summary judgment because there are material facts in
dispute. The material facts disputed by the Appellants are the
frequency with which Brian Howard stayed at Sheila Tolfa’s
apartment and whether the relationship was “headed toward
marriage.” Both of these facts are important elements in
determining whether Mr. Howard was a resident of the same
4
household as Sheila Tolfa. Additionally, the Appellants dispute
the conclusion that Mr. Howard was a resident of Sheila Tolfa’s
household. Reviewing the evidence in the record, we find the
record does not establish that only one conclusion can be drawn
from the facts adduced. Because there are material disputed
facts which create a genuine issue for trial, the trial court
inappropriately granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit
Court is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal are adjudged
against State Farm.
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
CONCUR:
Herschel P. Franks, J.
D. Michael Swiney, J.
5