Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Ranger Insurance

186 S.E.2d 579, 125 Ga. App. 166, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 773

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: November 23, 1971
• Docket: 46478
• Status: Published

Opinions

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

This is an action by the owner and lienholder of an aircraft against an insurer to recover for the loss in a crash on June 27, 1970. The plaintiffs appeals a summary judgment for the insurer.

The facts are stipulated and undisputed. The named insured, John C. Loftin, was operating the aircraft at the time of the loss, and was carrying a passenger. He held a student pilot certificate, and under Federal Aviation Regulation § 61.73 (a) (1), a student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying a passenger.

The presence of a passenger had no causal connection with the loss, but the insurer denied coverage on the basis that the policy excluded coverage during a flight with a student pilot in command while carrying a passenger, relying on the following provisions of the policy: "Exclusions. This policy does not apply: ... 2. to any occurrence or to any any loss or damage occurring while the aircraft is operated in flight by other than the pilot or pilots set forth under item 7 of the Declarations; . . . Declarations ... 7. Pilot clause: Only the following pilot or pilots holding valid and effective pilot and medical certificates with ratings as required by the Federal Aviation Administration for the flight involved will operate the aircraft in flight: John C. Loftin: Otherwise, any private or commercial pilot having a minimum of 300 total logged hours. ”

While § 56-2439 of the Insurance Code (Ga. L. 1968, p. 1414), expressly prohibits the issuing or delivering in this State of an insurance contract covering the loss of an aircraft which excludes or denies coverage because the aircraft is operated in violation of Federal, State, or local civil air regulations, the exceptions as stated in this statute include exclusions or conditions with respect to pilot certification by the FAA, pilot experience, and limitations on the use of the aircraft. In our opinion the contractual provisions here involved are clearly within the exceptions under § 56-2439, not only in relation to pilot certification by FAA and pilot experience, but also as limiting the use of the aircraft by restricting the operation in flight to a pilot or pilots meeting stated qualifications.

We also think the provisions of the policy are clear, and require no construction, to reach the conclusion that the pilot clause as a whole applies to John C. Loftin. He, as well as any private or commercial pilot having 300 total logged hours, was authorized to operate the aircraft in flight, only if he held a valid pilot certificate "for the flight involved.” The flight here involved was one with a passenger, not covered by his student pilot certificate, and expressly excluded from the coverage afforded by the policy. See, to the same effect, National Insurance Underwriters v. Bequette, (USDC, Alaska) 280 FSupp. 842.

Argued September 14, 1971 Decided November 23, 1971 Rehearing denied December 10, 1971 Elliott & Turner, Tyron Elliott, for appellants. Gambrell, Russell, Killorin, Wade & Forbes, Edward W. Killorin, Sewell K. Loggins, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, Pannell, Deen, and Quillian, JJ., concur. Evans, J., dissents. Whitman, J., not participating because of illness.