“It is well settled that riders or endorsements qualifying or restricting the liability of the insurer attached to the face of the policy contemporaneously with its issuance to the insured, constitute a part of the policy, where such riders or endorsements themselves provide that they are a part of the policy.” Taylor v. State Farm Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting Brown v. Tenn. Auto Ins. Co., 237 S.W.2d 553, 555 (Tenn. 1951)); see also Allmerica Fin. Benefit Ins. Co. v. Eagles Sales Co., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-02545, 2021 WL 140810, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2021) (citing Taylor, 775 S.W.2d at 371).

Further, a rider that "modifies or restricts the terms of the policy is controlling." Id; see also Taylor v. State Farm Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). When interpreting a benefit exclusion rider, it is the court's job to fairly construe the language of the rider.

Although no reported Alabama decision has addressed those questions, the courts of other jurisdictions that have confronted the issues are in agreement that an endorsement excluding a named driver provides no coverage while the vehicle is being operated by the named driver, irrespective of whether that driver has the permission of the insured. See, e.g., Deutsch v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.2d 823 (Mo.App. 1970); 1970); Taylor v. State Farm Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 370 (Tenn.App. 1989). In Deutsch v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., the policy excluded coverage if the vehicle was operated by the insured's 17-year-old son.

It is well settled that riders or endorsements qualifying or restricting the liability to the insurer attached to the face of the policy contemporaneously with its issuance to the insured, constitute a part of the policy, where such riders or endorsements themselves provide that they are a part of the policy.Taylor v. State Farm Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Brown v. Tennessee Auto Ins. Co., 237 S.W.2d 553, 554 (Tenn. 1951) (internal citation omitted)). Here, the language of the Exclusion provides as follows:

Finally, the terms of an insurance contract should be construed broadly regarding terms of coverage and narrowly regarding exclusions from coverage. Taylor v. State Farm Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). III.

The self-evident rationale of the exclusion portion of the statute is to enable households that include a family member who has a poor driving record to obtain insurance at a reasonable cost by excluding the poor driver. Under the Anopols' interpretation, the only time a driver-exclusion endorsement could ever be effective is when the excluded relative borrows the automobile without the primary insured's permission — in other words, when the relative steals the car.Cf. Taylor v. State Farm Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989) (holding that exclusion agreement operated to bar claim in case in which son had stolen vehicle from his mother, the primary insured); Smith v. Western Preferred Casualty Co., 424 So.2d 375, 376 (La.Ct.App. 1982) ("The exclusion is not conditioned on whether or not the excluded named drivers were operating the automobile with the permission or consent of the named insured."), cert. denied, 427 So.2d 1212 (La. 1983).