Marshall v. Peerless Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1968 |
| Parties | Charles MARSHALL et al., Appellants, v. The PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
O. T. Hinton, Pikeville, for appellants.
E. R. Hays, Baird & Hays, Jack T. Page, Pikeville, for appellees.
This action involves the right of the owners of an aircraft to recover under a collision insurance policy for damages incurred when the craft overshot a landing and went off the end of the runway. Appellee, the Peerless Insurance Company, as insurer of the aircraft insists that it is not liable for the damages because of an exclusion in the policy. The pertinent facts developed on the trial of the action are as follows:
Charles Marshall, Maurice Newsom and James Thacker purchased a Cessna 182 aircraft. They procured from Peerless a policy covering damages to theaircraft incurred as a result of its operation. Section 7 of the policy provided:
'7. Pilots: It is a condition hereof that such 'Flight' coverage as is provided by this policy applies only while the aircraft is being operated by the following specified pilot(s) while holding proper certificate(s) and rating(s) as required by the Federal Aviation Agency for the flight involved:
'(a) Charles Marshall; Maurice J. Newsom; James Thacker, as student pilot * * *.'
'(c) Any private pilot or any commercial pilot, who has logged solo or pilot in command flight time of at least 300 total hours during the past 10 years; 50 hours in aircraft of like kind of which 10 total hours shall have been logged during the past 90 days.'
James Thacker was licensed as a student pilot. Student pilots under the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Agency cannot act as pilot in command of an aircraft while carrying passengers. On April 17, 1965, Thacker agreed to fly a friend, Hap Early, and his two daughters, to Huntington, West Virginia, on the following day for a dental appointment. Another friend, Bill Davis, who also owned a plane, decided he would like to go along. This made five people, which was more than the aircraft could accommodate, and all parties decided to take Davis's plane, also. When it was ascertained that Davis would take his plane, Thacker invited Sgt. Owen C. Hammonds, who was an army recruiter and a duly licensed and qualified pilot, to go along in his aircraft as command pilot. On the trip to Huntington, Early and the two girls flew with Davis in his plane. Thacker and Hammonds flew in the Thacker plane. On the return trip, Early rode with Davis and the two girls returned with Thacker and Hammonds. The Thacker plane was equipped with two complete sets of controls, one on either side. On the return trip, which is the one here under consideration, Thacker and Hammonds alternated in manipulating the controls. Upon approaching the landing strip in Pikeville, where the questioned collision occurred, Thacker was manipulating the controls with the intention of landing the plane, while Hammonds was monitoring the other set of controls with the intention of lending assistance where need be. The landing was normal until the plane almost touched down. However, in the last few seconds the wind changed 180 , the plane picked up speed accordingly and raised 15 to 20 feet into the air. Thacker was of the opinion that he might overshoot the field so he closed the carburetor heat and advanced the throttle with the intended purpose of going around the field again. Hammonds decided that the landing could be made and that there might be danger in going around. He accordingly took control of the plane, closed the throttle, and made the landingl But, by this time the plane was approaching the end of the runway and because of the added momentum due to the shift of the wind and a wet landing surface, he was unable to stop it. The plane left the runway, collided with a fence, and was damaged in the amount of $6657.28. There are other questions involved in the appeal, but we believe the one that will be dispositive of all issues is whether an exception in the policy precludes recovery. The exception is as follows:
'This policy does not apply while the aircraft is in flight and operated by a student pilot unless such flight or attempted flight is with the specific advance approval of and under the supervision and control of an F.A.A. Certified Commercial Instructor Pilot.'
Appellee insists that this exception applies to the circumstances above outlined and it is therefore not responsible for the repair of the aircraft. We can not agree with this contention for two reasons. The Federal Aviation Regulations 1 adopted by the Federal Aviation Agency govern the operation of all aircraft within the continental United States. The pertinent part of these regulations governing this flight is as follows:
'F.A.R. § 61.73. General limitations.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft--
(1) That is carrying a passenger;
(2) That is on an international flight;
(3) For compensation or hire;
(4) In furtherance of a business; or
(5) Other than the make and model endorsed on his certificate by his certificated flight instructor.'
'F.A.R. 61.101.
(1) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.' 2 (Emphasis added).
'F.A.R. 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this subpart or of Subpart B to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.'
As the policy provides coverage if any one of the pilots designated under Section 7--c was operating the aircraft at the time of the accident, we are of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pan American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Edwards Aircraft Inc.
...to the permitted uses stated in the Declarations and thereby run afoul of Exclusion 4(c). 3 Defendants cite Marshall v. Peerless Insurance Co., 428 S.W.2d 190 (Ky.1968). The question in Marshall, a claim for property damage to the plane, was which of two pilots —a licensed pilot or a studen......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Hudson Energy Co., Inc.
...piloted by other than the pilot or pilots designated in the Declarations." (Emphasis added). Hudson relies upon Marshall v. Peerless Insurance Co., 428 S.W.2d 190 (Ky.1968), to support its position that simultaneous piloting was covered. In Marshall, the court reasoned that since the qualif......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Hudson Energy Co., Inc.
...policy. Having failed to do so, National Union cannot now complain. 4 Our analysis is similar to that applied in Marshall v. Peerless Insurance Co., 428 S.W.2d 190 (Ky.1968). In Marshall, a student pilot was flying the plane while a qualified pilot sat at the other set of controls to assist......