Electron Machine Corp. v. American Mercury Insurance Co.

Decision Date21 December 1961
Docket NumberNo. 18905.,18905.
Citation297 F.2d 212
PartiesELECTRON MACHINE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. AMERICAN MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

George T. Kelly, III, Kelly & Hurt, Orlando, Fla., for appellant.

Harry T. Gray, Francis P. Conroy, Sam R. Marks, Delbridge L. Gibbs, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee; Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, Fla., of counsel, for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

JONES, Circuit Judge.

The appellee, American Mercury Insurance Company, issued a policy of insurance to the appellant, the Electron Machine Corporation, providing hull coverage in the amount of $20,000.00 on a Piper aircraft. The policy Declarations state that the insured aircraft was to be used for "Industrial Aid," which was defined as "Personal, Pleasure, Family and Business uses, including transportation of executives, employees, guests and customers and including instruction of any person specified by name in Item 7, below, but excluding any operation for which a charge is made." Item 7, incorporated in the policy as an endorsement, provided:

"This policy applies when the aircraft is in flight, only while being operated by the following pilot(s): Pilots as specified in (4) below and any pilot who has a valid and effective Private or Commercial Pilot Certificate with appropriate ratings who meets each of the following minimum flight experience requirements specifically indicated by the figure X;
"X (1) Not less than 1000 hours flight time as Pilot in Command;
"X (2) Not less than 100 hours flight time as Pilot in Command in aircraft of the same Category, Class and Type as the insured aircraft;
"X (3) Within the preceding 60 days has made at least 5 take-offs and landings to a full stop in aircraft of the same Category, Class and Type as the insured aircraft;
"X (4) Carl A. Vossberg or A. E. Medefind."

On March 9, 1959, an endorsement added to the coverage of the policy a Piper PA-23 aircraft, and an additional premium was charged. Another endorsement changed the provision of paragraph (4) of Item 7, with respect to the Piper PA-23, so as to name as the "pilots specified" Carl A. Vossberg, A. E. Medefind or E. R. Holler. Among the Insuring Agreements of the policy is the following:

"This policy applies only to occurrences, and losses to the insured aircraft which are sustained, during the policy period while the aircraft * * is owned, maintained and used for the purposes stated as applicable thereto in the declarations."

The policy also contained, among its Conditions, the provision that:

"Notice to any agent or knowledge possessed by any agent or by any other person shall not effect a waiver or a change in any part of this policy or estop the Company from asserting any right under the terms of this policy; nor shall the terms of this policy be waived or changed, except by endorsement issued to form a part of this policy, signed by an authorized representative of the Company."

Bryant M. Bouslog was a pilot holding a valid license with flight requirements of (a) not less than 1000 hours flight time as pilot in command, (b) not less than 100 hours flight time in aircraft of the same category, class and type as the Piper PA-23; and (c) within the 60 days preceding August 30, 1959, had made at least five take-offs and landings to a full stop in aircraft of the same category, class and type as the Piper PA-23. J. L. Moody was a vice president and the Productions Manager of Electron. Bouslog was employed by Electron to instruct Moody in operating the Piper aircraft. On August 30, 1959, while Bouslog was giving instructions to Moody the aircraft crashed and was damaged or destroyed to an extent exceeding the policy coverage. American Mercury denied liability and assigned as the ground for its disclaimer that "the said James L. Moody was not listed for instruction." Electron brought suit. American Mercury and Electron both moved for summary judgment. The motion of American Mercury was granted and summary judgment for it was entered.

The appellant points to the affidavit of Carl A. Vossberg, its President, that he was advised by an agent of American Mercury that there would be coverage while Moody was working on a multi-engine rating if a second pilot either named or meeting the requirements of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Item 7, or an instructor, were seated beside the student. This, says Electron, was a construction by American Mercury of an ambiguity in the policy which binds it under the doctrines of estoppel or waiver, or both, or raises a fact issue which cannot be resolved by a summary judgment. So also, urges Electron, there is a fact question as to whether the instruction of Moody was included in the term "industrial aid" within the meaning of the policy. The rule is well settled that, although a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Macalco, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1977
    ...many jurisdictions have expressly rejected any causation requirement while enforcing excluded uses. Electron Mach. Corp. v. American Mercury Ins. Co., 297 F.2d 212, 214(3) (5th Cir. 1961); Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Cordova Airlines, Inc., supra, 283 F.2d at 664(4, 5); Globe Indem......
  • U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. West Monroe Charter Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • February 25, 1987
    ...applying Florida law; Arnold v. Globe Indem. Co., 416 F.2d 119 (6th Cir.1969), applying Kentucky law; Electron Mach. Corp. v. American Mercury Ins. Co., 297 F.2d 212 (5th Cir.1961), applying Florida law; Bruce v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 222 F.2d 642 (4th Cir.1955), applying North Caro......
  • Ranger Insurance Company v. Culberson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 26, 1972
    ...v. Prinscen, 291 U.S. 576, 582, 54 S.Ct. 502, 504, 78 L.Ed. 999, 1003. Lineas, supra at 155. See also Electron Machine Corp. v. American Mercury Insurance Co., 5 Cir. 1961, 297 F.2d 212. The factual distinction that the majority makes between Lineas and the case sub judice, i. e., that in L......
  • Pacific Indem. Co. v. Kohlhase
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1969
    ...(1966); Lineas Aereas Colombianas Expresas v. Travelers Fire Ins. Co., 257 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1958); Electron Machine Corp. v. American Mercury Ins. Co., 297 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1961); Globe Indemnity Co. v. Hansen, 231 F.2d 895 (8th Cir. 1956); Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Cordova A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT