Cases—Interpretation—“Tennessee” is not ambiguous enough to include “Kentucky”

A clause in a workers’ compensation policy that said benefits would only be paid in Tennessee was not ambiguous and therefore the policy did not extend to a Kentucky worker injured in Kentucky, according to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The insured trucking company was based in Tennessee, but its trucks went through Kentucky, and it employed some workers who lived in Kentucky.  Nevertheless, when it took out its workers’ comp policy, the policy listed only Tennessee as a state in which coverage was provided.  The trial court found this term ambiguous and construed it against the insurer, apparently holding that “Tennessee” included “Kentucky.”

This was error, said the Knoxville court.  The term was not ambiguous and therefore there was no coverage for the Kentucky worker.  Fred Simmons Trucking, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 798 (Nov. 29, 2004).