By
CHAMBERLAIN McHANEY
*
*
*
Does a Homeowner’s
Policy cover an Insured’s liability for Injury caused by a Tipsy
Airplane?
Indeed it does, if you follow the logic
of the
Tucker and Hartless owned similar
aircraft, were aircraft aficionados, and began debating the relative weight of
their respective planes (doesn’t everyone?). Since a set of scales was
conveniently located in the hangar, they decided to settle the debate once and
for all by weighing their planes. Moving to Tucker’s plane first, they
slid the scales beneath each of the wheels. While Tucker was positioning
the scales, the airplane nosed over on top of them both, pinning Hartless under
the propeller and injuring him. Hartless sued Tucker, and Tucker demanded
a defense from Allstate, his homeowner’s carrier. Allstate denied
coverage.
Allstate sought a declaratory judgment
specifying its rights and responsibilities under the terms of the policy,
arguing that it had no duty to defend or cover the claim. Allstate then
filed for summary judgment and the trial court granted it. Sounds
reasonable to us, because the homeowner’s policy contained the following
exclusion:
Coverage C (Personal Liability) and
Coverage D (Medical Payments to Others) do not apply
to:
h. bodily injury or property damage
arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading
of aircraft: Aircraft means any device used or designed for flight, except model
or hobby aircraft not used or designed to carry people or
cargo.
Well, the
Said the court, “the insurer is
obligated to defend if there is, potentially, an action alleged within the
policy coverage, even if the allegations do not clearly show there is
coverage.” The court reasoned (term used loosely here) that the exclusion
was inapplicable because the accident did not arise out of the ownership,
maintenance, operation or use of the plane. Although Tucker owned the
plane, there was no causal connection between his “ownership” and the
accident. He would be liable for his negligent acts causing this injury
regardless of his ownership of the plane. As to “maintenance,” they were
not maintaining the plane, they were trying to weigh it, darn it! Two
exclusory terms down, two to go. As to “operation,” they weren’t operating
the plane, because the plane wouldn’t operate—it was broke. As to “use,”
the court said that while these flyboys were weighing the craft, they were not
using it as an aircraft or for its intended purpose in any fashion. Again,
the dang thing would not fly and they weren’t trying to fly it at the
time.
We take away valuable lessons from this
case. First, if you are going to do something stupid with a plane, do it
in
*
*
*
Speaking of vehicles,
*
*
*
Chamberlain McHaney is an AV (highest)
rated Firm and is listed in Best’s Directory of Recommended
DAVID E.
CHAMBERLAIN
CHAMBERLAIN
McHANEY
512.474.9124