## Facts

- Michael Garrison, age eighteen, was riding a minibike when a car driven by Andy Bickford and owned by Rita Bickford struck him; he later died from his injuries.
- Michael’s parents, Jerry and Martha Garrison, heard the collision, arrived immediately afterward, and witnessed their son’s critical condition while awaiting medical assistance.
- The parents alleged severe emotional injuries (including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms) from witnessing the accident’s immediate aftermath and their son’s death.
- The Garrisons had an automobile policy with State Farm providing uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage for damages because of “bodily injury.”
- The policy defined “bodily injury” as “bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death that results from it,” and included an “Each Person” limit for all damages due to bodily injury to one person, including damages to others resulting from that injury.
- The Garrisons sued the Bickfords for wrongful death and for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for the parents’ own harm, and served State Farm under the UM provisions.
- The tort claims settled for $25,000 on the wrongful death claim and $25,000 on the NIED claim.
- State Farm paid $75,000 in UM benefits allocated to the wrongful death claim but denied UM benefits for the parents’ NIED claim, asserting emotional distress was not “bodily injury” and the relevant per-person limit had been exhausted.

## Issues

1. Whether “bodily injury,” as defined in the UM policy and as used in Tennessee’s UM statute, includes mental or emotional injuries standing alone.
2. Whether the policy’s definition of “bodily injury” conflicts with Tennessee’s UM statute such that the statute expands coverage to include stand-alone emotional distress.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held that “bodily injury,” as defined in the policy, does not include mental or emotional injuries standing alone.
- The Court held the policy definition does not conflict with Tennessee’s UM statute and is enforceable as written.
- Because coverage failed on the definition of “bodily injury,” the Court did not need to definitively resolve how the “Each Person” limit would apply to the parents’ emotional-distress damages.

## Legal Principles

- Insurance policies are interpreted according to their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning in context; courts construe true ambiguities in favor of the insured but do not create ambiguity.
- A policy definition tying “sickness, disease, or death” to “bodily injury to a person” is read as requiring a physical-injury basis; purely emotional harm is not “bodily injury” absent policy language to the contrary.
- The existence of tort liability for emotional distress does not determine insurance coverage; coverage depends on the contract terms unless a statute or public policy requires broader coverage.
- Tennessee’s UM statute, using “bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom,” does not mandate UM coverage for emotional injuries unaccompanied by bodily injury.
- Where a policy’s “Each Person” limit applies to all damages due to bodily injury to one person, related damages sustained by others because of that injury are generally treated as subject to the single per-person limit.

## Conclusion

The court held that, under a UM policy defining “bodily injury” in physically anchored terms and absent a statutory mandate to the contrary, stand-alone emotional distress is not covered as “bodily injury,” and the insurer may deny UM benefits for a parents’ NIED claim arising from a child’s fatal accident.


Garrison v. Bickford, 377 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2012)