is the Debtor insured under each policy. Id. In contrast, the plural “such persons” is used in § 56-7-203 to confine the section’s applicability to policies “made for the benefit of ... the spouse and/or children, or dependent relatives of such persons.” Id. (emphasis added). There, the plural “such persons” refers to the spouse and/or children of the insured. Id. The plain statutory language of § 56-7-203 therefore does not support the Debtors’ interpretation. If the Tennessee Legislature intended for the exemption to stand against the creditors of the other entities mentioned in the statute, it would have again employed the plural “such persons” to include the beneficiary spouse and/or children of the insured. Cf. McLemore v. Huffines (In re Huffines), 57 B.R. 740 (M.D.Tenn.1985) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Policy Number 2181004 is
holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate holding that debtor not bank paid the propertytax redemption amount even though debtor paid this amount using proceeds of loan from the bank holding that  567203 did not exempt life insurance proceeds paid to the debtor spouse against the claims of her own creditors holding that because no claims had been filed against the debtor existence of entity coverage did not make proceeds property of the estate holding that where the debtor is the owner of a policy insuring his own life and listing his wife as the beneficiary upon his death the proceeds of the policy including the cash value thereof are exempt from the claims of the insureds creditors