Exclusions Aircraft

‘Aircraft’exclusions ineffective
Tucker v. Texas Lloyds Insurance Co.
(Texas, Dec. 6, 2005)Plaintiff and his friend, Hartless, were moving Tucker’s inoperable, home-built light plane onto movable scales to weigh it. Tucker tipped the plane onto its nose, pinning Hartless under the propeller and causing physical injury. Hartless attempted to recover from Tucker and Tucker tendered his defense to Allstate, his homeowner’s insurance carrier. Allstate maintained the aircraft exclusion relieved it of its liability to defend Tucker. Allstate’s coverage did not apply to “bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of aircraft.” The court said the exclusion did not apply. Although the plaintiff clearly owned the aircraft, “[t]o suggest that simply because Tucker owned the aircraft, any personal injury in which the aircraft was implicated in any fashion was excluded does violence to the remaining portion of the exclusory clause.” There was no evidence the aircraft was being maintained at the time, and it was inoperable. Further, the aircraft was not being used as an aircraft at the time of the injury. The court said the injury could have been sustained if the friends were moving a piece of furniture, or any other piece of property. Lastly, the aircraft was not being loaded or unloaded at the time of the accident. The lower court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and found Allstate had a duty to defend Tucker.

Case Law Watch is edited by Kevin T. Merriman of the law firm of Goldberg Segalla (www.goldbergsegalla.com). Merriman can be reached at kmerriman@goldbergsegalla.com.

Topics Aviation Allstate