Hall v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n
| Decision Date | 04 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 5946.,5946. |
| Parties | HALL v. MUTUAL BEN. HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS'N. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; Daniel A. Blair, Judge.
Suit by Marion I. Hall against the Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association on an aviation and air travel accident policy for injuries sustained while riding in a glider. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Gordon Treadaway, Lubbock, for appellant.
Chrestman, Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Bateman, Dallas, for appellee.
The question involved on this appeal is the construction to be given the term powered aircraft as used in the insuring clause of an aviation and air travel accident policy. The policy was issued by the appellee, Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, to the appellant, Marion I. Hall. This suit was instituted by the appellant to recover under the policy for injuries sustained by him while riding in a glider. It appears that the glider had been towed into the air by an airplane near Lubbock, Texas, and released by the airplane at an altitude of about two thousand feet. On its return to the airport, the glider went out of control at about two hundred feet and crashed causing the injuries suffered by the appellant. The case was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury and resulted in a judgment whereby the appellant was to take nothing by reason of his suit. From the judgment the appellant has perfected his appeal and the case is now before this court for disposition.
The appellant contends that the court erred in holding as a matter of law that a glider is not a powered aircraft within the meaning of the term used in the policy of insurance.
The insuring clause of the policy reads as follows:
"The term, such injuries, as used in this policy, shall mean only those accidental bodily injuries which are incurred while this policy is in force and are caused by the damaging of a powered aircraft in which the Insured is riding, or from or with which the Insured is falling, or are caused by the Insured's being struck by an aircraft propeller or being run down by an aircraft."
The record reveals that the policy was prepared by the appellee and issued to the appellant, a licensed pilot; that the glider in which the appellant was riding was not equipped with either an engine or a motor; and that the term powered aircraft is not defined in the policy.
The appellant asserts that the term powered aircraft does not have an established meaning. If an aircraft has a reciprocating or jet engine, it is referred to as an airplane; if the aircraft is without an engine, it is called a glider. Pilots do not refer to aircraft as being either powered or unpowered. The Civil Aeronautics Board defines an Aircraft as any contrivance used or designed for navigation or for flight in the air, except a parachute or other contrivance designed for such navigation but used primarily as safety equipment. A Glider, as defined by the Civil Aeronautics Board, is an aircraft without mechanical means of propulsion, the support of which in flight is derived dynamically from the reaction on surfaces in motion relative to the air. The term aircraft includes both an airplane and a glider. The appellant points out that an airplane is not sustained in flight because of its engine. The power that lifts the airplane and the power that lifts the glider is developed in exactly the same way, i. e., the aerodynamic action of the air over the airfoils, or its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meadows
...meaning unless the instrument itself shows them to have been used in a technical or different sense. Hall v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 934, 936, application for writ of error refused; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Reed, Tex.Sup., 251 S.W.2d 150, 152-153;......
-
Meadows & Walker Drilling Co. v. Pacific Emp. Indem. Co., Civ. A. No. 69-H-467.
... ... the loss of use thereof caused by accident ... As plaintiff was ... contracts must be guided by common sense, Hall v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, ... ...
-
American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Fish, 7684
...that: 'The terms of an insurance policy must be interpreted in the light of common sense.' Hall v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n, 220 S.W.2d 934 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo, 1949, writ ref'd). Because the evidence does not support the amount of the judgment rendered, the case is reversed a......
-
Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Tubbs
...and common sense construction of the language used rather than a strained or unnatural interpretation. Hall v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 934 (error refused); T. I. M. E., Inc., v. Maryland Casualty Co., 157 Tex. 121, 300 S.W.2d 68. The usual and accepted ......