Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 In general, courts should construe insurance contracts in the same manner as any other contract. McKimm v. Bell, 790 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tenn. 1990); Draper v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 224 Tenn. 552, 458 S.W.2d 428, 432 (Tenn. 1970). In Bob Pearsall Motors, Inc. v. Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 521 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. 1975), the court stated: The cardinal rule for interpretation of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties and to give effect to that intention,   consistent with legal principles. It is the Court's duty to enforce contracts according to their plain terms. Further, the language used must be taken and understood in its plain, ordinary and popular sense. The courts, of course, are precluded from creating a new contract for the parties. Id. at 580 (internal citations omitted); see also Galyon v. First Tenn. Bank, 803 S.W.2d 218, 219 (Tenn. 1991); Whaley v. Underwood, 922 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Tenn. App. 1995).


Tennessee, like most states, recognizes the validity of conditions precedent for insurance coverage, including uninsured motorist coverage. McKimm, 790 S.W.2d at 528; Phoenix Cotton Oil Co. v. Royal Indem. Co., 140 Tenn. 438, 442, 205 S.W. 128, 130 ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students