WPC" a}#*dQd}!%} F(` B{'#9B/,g5bÄ)z5P'1 X3PmSYUgmt+@|}tӯyqqGq` 6si_(2 q@,ȬzQSԻY^,7-5DYP 0 &fq:>PPuӦNv#rDomjϓ ea"U{R`1[u<6RܿdaD \Rz|zT:%A'Hj[ ~qu(.-9*7d?-Wg qdtI} ]d/ѸB(R[?RsǬkq&Qi*#(wEXI2y? 稓`SLDo9pGD#F}yrEc;oE.GPzk&|B_'7b#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m 0 ^ $UNvNU> 1uEy 0{ 0L 0 0 0S 0 0 72$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bVVVVVVVVVVV 0Y^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1e 0N4jjjjj 0D= 0 B   0' D3 D- 0K++ ASv 0 0D3 AwHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6073  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=M3B012C8 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   i)- -64Hyperlink      35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$mailto:jburlew@taldem.com(#$  0   3 R#$      1  1  _Aswediscussbelow,adenialofinsurancecoveragebyagarnisheeinsurancecompanyalonedoesnotmake  allegeddebtcontingentforthepurposesofgarnishment.(|G2#$ !.8^dd8         0  1 d(|3z$ !.8^dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3z$ !.8^dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8^dd8     _  ^8EXXdd8  @ B^INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#^B #Ԉ &   August16,2005Session L XEX^ #^XXE#_LIPMAN_ԀBROTHERS,INC.v.ARETEAGENCIES,INCXEX^  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.991557IICarolMcCoy,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200402073_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember7,_2005_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XEXXXEPlaintiff_Lipman_ԀBrothers,Inc.purchased1,156casesofFrenchwineandhiredItaliaDi x  _Navigazione_,_S.p.A._Ԁ( Italia)toshipthewinetotheUnitedStatesfromFrance.Italiasubsequently d hiredDefendantAreteAgencies,Inc.( Arete)totransportthewinetoPlaintiffsNashville P warehouses.AreteplacedthewineonatrainboundforNashvillebut,afterreachingitsdestination, < thewinewasneverdeliveredtoPlaintiffandultimatelyspoiledaftersettingoutsideinthesummer (x heatforthirtysixdays.Aretesinsuranceprovider,TheHartfordInsuranceCompany( Hartford), d deniedcoveragefortheincident.PlaintifflaterobtainedajudgmentagainstAreteand,afterlearning P thatAretewasunabletopay,issuedawritofgarnishmentagainstHartford.Thetrialcourt < subsequentlyquashedPlaintiffswritafterconcludingthatthedebtwas contingentbecause ( Plaintifffailedtofirstinstituteadeclaratoryjudgmentactiontointerpretthedisputedinsurance  contractbeforeseekinggarnishment.Wereverse.  #XEXXXE##^XXE#XEX^ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversed;and  Remanded  t   #^XE #XEX.^DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, L  andWilliamH._Inman_,Sp.J.,joined. 8!  EugeneN._Bulso_,Jr.AndBarbaraHawleySmith,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Lipman_ #`" Brothers,Inc. #L# ThomasI.Carlton,Jr.AndBenM.Rose,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TheHartford %$!% InsuranceCompany. &"& x  OPINION #^XXE #XEX^ (#( #^XXE#  XEX^XEXXXE @ FactualBackgroundandProceduralHistory p*%*      Thiscasearisefromthespoliationof1,156casesofwine ._Lipman_ԀBrothers,Inc. @,', ( Plaintiff)isawinedistributorbasedinNashville,Tennessee. OnApril30,1998,Plaintiff ,-|(- contractedwithItaliaDi_Navigazione_,_S.p.A._Ԁ( Italia)toship1,156casesofwinefromLesVins  Georges_Duboeuf_ԀinLa_Chappelle_ԄDe_Guinchay_,France,to_Lipman_swarehouselocatedin  Nashville,Tennessee. ItaliashippedthewineoverseasfromFrancetoSavannah,Georgia,and  subcontractedwithAreteAgencies,Inc.( Arete)totransportthewinefromSavannahto t PlaintiffsNashvillewarehouses. #XEXXXE#XEXXXEOnJune5,1998,Areteplacedthewineonarailroadcarfor ` immediatetransporttoNashville. ThewinearrivedinNashvilleonJune8,1998,butPlaintiff L  didnotreceiveituntilJuly15,1998. Duringthisthirtysixdayperiod,thewineremained 8  outsideinthe_railyard_Ԁunprotectedfromthesummerheatandelements. Asaresultofthis $ t exposure,thewinespoiled. PlaintiffsubsequentlyfiledsuitagainstAreteonJune2,1999,to  ` recoverdamagesresultingfromthespoliationofthewine.   L    Atalltimesrelevanttothismatter,Aretehadinsurancecoverageunderacommercial $  generalliabilitypolicyissuedbyTheHartfordInsuranceCompany( Hartford). Arete   submittedaclaimtoHartfordforPlaintiffslossandaskedHartfordtodefendandindemnify   AretewithrespecttoPlaintiffscomplaint. However,HartforddeniedcoverageforAretesclaim   onJuly15,1999,duetoa care,custody,orcontrolexclusioninthepolicy. Specifically,ina   lettertoArete,Hartfordstated: p 8  TheHartfordInsuranceCompanyissuedPolicyNo.22SBAEK7130toArete H Transportationwithapolicyperiodfrom1/27/98through1/27/99.Thelimitsof 4 liabilityare$1Mperoccurrenceforallbodilyinjuryorpropertydamage.The  p pertinentcoverageformistheSS00080698,theBusinessLiabilityendorsement.  \ Thisformindicatesundertheinsuringagreementthatwewillpayallthesums H thattheinsuredbecomeslegallyobligatedtopayasdamagesbecauseofbodily 4 injury,propertydamage,personalinjuryoradvertisinginjurytowhichthis   insuranceapplies.Areviewoftheexclusionsinthisformindicateunder   ExclusionK.4thatthispolicywouldnotapplytopropertydamagestopropertyin  care,custodyorcontroloftheinsured.Since[Plaintiffs]Complaintindicates  thatthepropertydamageoccurredwhileinthecareandcontrolofArete,wemust  respectfullydisclaimcoverageforthislossbasedonthisexclusion.l    AfterHartfordrefusedtodefendthecase,AretefiledananswertoPlaintiffscomplaint.#XEXXXE#XEXXXEԀArete D! subsequentlydissolvedonDecember14,1999. OnApril28,2000,thecourtgrantedjudgment 0"  forPlaintiffagainstAreteintheamount$52,032.28.  #l!   DuetoAretesinabilitytopaythecourtsjudgment,Plaintiffexecutedanonwage $D # garnishmentagainstHartfordseekingpaymentofthe$52,032.28award. Hartfordrespondedby %0!$ arguingthattheinsurancepolicydidnotprovidecoveragefortheallegationsmadeinPlaintiffs & "% originalcomplaintorforthedamagesclaimedtherein. HartfordsubsequentlyfiledaMotionto ' #& QuashPlaintiffsWritofExecutionandGarnishmentasserting,amongotherthings,#XEXXXEr#XEXXXEthatany (#' obligationowedbyHartfordwascontingentandthusnotsubjecttogarnishment. Insupportof )$( thisargument,HartfordcitedtheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisioninOvermanv.Overman, *%) 570S.W.2d857(Tenn.1978)forthepropositionthat [_w]hile_Ԁobligationsthatarecertain, l+&* althoughnotpresentlydue,aresubjecttogarnishmentunderTennesseelaw,obligationsthatare  contingent,inthattheymayneverbecomedue[,]arenot. HartfordarguedthatsincePlaintiff  hadnotfirstsoughtadeclaratoryjudgmentactioninterpretingtheinsurancecontract,anyamount  potentiallydueunderthecontractwascontingent. PlaintifffiledaMotionforConditional t JudgmentonJune25,2004. ThetrialcourtgrantedHartfordsMotiontoQuashfromtheBench ` onJuly23,2004. Insoruling,thetrialjudgemadethefollowingfindings: L  8   ` Thestatuteunderwhich[Plaintiff]hasissuedagarnishmentagainst $ t [Hartford]is[Tenn.CodeAnn.]262202.... `   Ѐ  L     ` ....  8  8   ` ...ThestatutethatIreferencedsaysthatallproperty,debts[,]andeffectsof   thedefendantinthepossessionorunderthecontrolofthegarnisheeshallbeliable   tosatisfytheplaintiffsjudgmentfromtheserviceofthenoticeorfromthetimethey   cameintotheplaintiffshandsifacquiredsubsequenttotheserviceofthenoticeand   beforejudgment.p   8   ` Thelittlenotescitethecasesthathavebeenreferencedhere.[Overman]. H Theymakeadistinctionbetweenpropertythatssubjecttothegarnishment....4      ` ....  \ 8   ` ThequestioniswhetherornotHartfordhaspropertythatissubjectto 4 garnishmentsoastosatisfy[Plaintiffs]judgment.[Hartfordhas]comeforwardand   said,[ ]Wehavenoobligationtopaythejudgmentbecausethecontracthasan   exclusion,andtheprovisionoftheexclusionappearsinaformcalledthe Business  LiabilityCoverageForm.     8 ` ....l` x` x   8   ` [Garnishmentapplies]toinsurancecompanieswhenitsclearthattheyhave D! anobligationtopay....[Hartforddenies]anyobligationoranyliabilitytoArete. 0"  Ihavelookedatthecontract.#l!      ` .... $D # 8   ` Theburdenontheinsurancecompanytoshowthattheyhavenoliabilityto &"% Aretebycaselawisaheavyburden.Tocomeoutfromunderaninsurancepolicy, '#& thatsgenerallyaheavyburden.Thatsnotthesameburdenthatexistsindenying (#' obligationsunderagarnishment.Itsadifferentburden.)$(     |*%) 8   ` Thatdoesntmeanthat_Lipman_ԀcannotpursueHartford.Butithastobein   amoreproperform....Ithinkthattheissuewillreallyfocusonwhatwas  HartfordsobligationunderthecontractthattheyhadwithArete,that_Lipman_Ԁsteps  intotheshoesofAreteforthepurposesofconstruingthiscontractasthejudgment t creditor.`   8   ` Hartforddeniedthatithadliabilitywhenademandwasmadeearlyon. @ ...8    8   ` Andthegarnishmentstatute[,]asIconstrueit[,]wasnottoattachan  ` insurancepolicy.Itwastoattachproperty,debts[,]andeffectsofthedefendantin  L  thepossessionorunderthecontrolofthegarnishee.Rightnow,thereisnoshowing  8  thatHartfordhasanyproperty,debts[,]oraffectsofthedefendantinitspossession $  orunderitscontrol.    8   ` Thatswhatwerelookingat.Andwhile,[Plaintiffargues]thattheresan   obligation,thechoseinactionmustbeonethattheCourtcanrecognizeas   constitutingproperty.Andthatisnotwhatwehavehere.Wehaveadenialof p coverage.Andthatswhatmakesitcontingent.Icantdothatintheseproceedings.\    PlaintiffsubsequentlyfiledaMotiontoReconsiderwhichthetrialcourtdenied. Thetrialcourt 4 enteredafinalwrittenorderquashingPlaintiffsWritofExecutionandGarnishmentonAugust  p 20,2004. Plaintiffappealed.  \ T6 G (03#XEXXXE!#XEXXXE4K >5    _9_  6k8HO  7 >8 IssuesPresented 4      WefindtheissueinthiscasetobewhetherthetrialcourterredinquashingPlaintiffs  WritofGarnishment.Forthereasonsstatedbelow,wereverse.     StandardofReview  |     Theissuespresentedinthisappealareissuesoflaw.Thestandardofreviewforthis P  Courtonissuesoflawisdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectnessaffordedtotheconclusions