Grigsby v. Houston Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 41954,No. 3,41954,3
• Citation: 113 Ga.App. 572,148 S.E.2d 925
• Parties: Paul GRIGSBY et al. v. HOUSTON FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 925

148 S.E.2d 925

113 Ga.App. 572

Paul GRIGSBY et al. v. HOUSTON FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 41954.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

April 29, 1966.

Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Dent Acree, Atlanta, for appellants.

Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Edward W. Killorin, W. Wray Eckl, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Judge.

The plaintiffs brought suit on a standard aviation insurance policy for property damage to their aircraft as a result of a crash landing. Defendant denied coverage under the policy. From the refusal to grant a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and the granting of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal.

1. As the policy provided that it 'does not apply * * * to loss while the aircraft is in flight by or with the permission of the insured during or as the result of its operation: * * * (4) in violation of any regulations pertaining to Airman's Certificates,' damage to the aircraft sustained while the aircraft was in flight with the permission of the insured in violation of regulations pertaining to Airman's Certificates was expressly excluded from the coverage of the policy. The policy, construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions, Code § 56-2419, was clear and unambiguous and not susceptible to the construction placed upon it by the appellants that knowledge of the violation of regulations pertaining to Airman's Certificates as well as knowledge of the flight was a prerequisite to exclusion of the loss from coverage. Edwards v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Assn., 128 Ga. 353, 57 S.E. 707, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 484; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 151 Ga. 191, 106 S.E. 186, 13 A.L.R. 880; Johnson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 154 Ga. 653(3), 115 S.E. 14; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hulsey, 220 Ga. 240, 138 S.E.2d 310; Black v. Fidelity-Phenix etc. Co., 14 Ga.App. 510, 81 S.E. 584; Mattox v. New England Mutual etc. Co., 25 Ga.App. 311, 103 S.E. 180; Railey v. United Life etc. Co., 26 Ga.App. 269(1), 106 S.E. 203; Hynds v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Assn., 45 Ga.App. 751, 165 S.E. 839; Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLeod, 70 Ga.App. 181, 27 S.E.2d 871; Lindsey v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 70 Ga.App. 190, 27 S.E.2d 877; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 74 Ga.App. 844, 41 S.E.2d 789; Moore v. Allstate Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 60, 131 S.E.2d 834.

2. A provision in the policy that the aircraft should be piloted only by the named insureds or a qualified private or commercial pilot with a minimum of 200 logged hours as a pilot in command of aircraft, 10 hours of which must have been in a Cessna 172 or aircraft of similar type and who have valid and effective pilot certificates with proper ratings as required by the Federal Aviation Agency for the flight involved is a valid and binding one.

3. An exclusion in the policy providing that it does not apply to the coverages specified when the insured operates or permits the aircraft to be operated, in violation of Federal Aviation Agency regulations, is a valid provision of the contract, and where the insured aircraft was operated by a pilot who, contrary to the regulations, had failed to make the required number of take-offs and landings within 90 days preceiding...