Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. Of Pittsburgh v. Eagle Aviation Acad. LLC
| Decision Date | 23 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:10-CV-108-WKW |
| Parties | NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE AVIATION ACADEMY, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Co. ("National Union") seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, establishing its obligations to its insured, Eagle Aviation Academy, LLC ("Eagle" or "Defendant"). (Doc. # 1.) After Eagle answered (Doc. # 8) and counterclaimed (Doc. # 11), National Union answered the counterclaim (Doc. # 12), and then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 19), which has been briefed and is ready for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted.
Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and there are allegations sufficient to support both.
"Summary judgment is appropriate 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record, including pleadings, discovery materials and affidavits], which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by presenting evidence indicating there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-24.
If the movant meets its evidentiary burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish, with evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine issue material to each of its claims for relief exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324; Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). What is material is determined by the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case." McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A genuine issue of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263; Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). However, if the evidence on which the nonmoving party relies "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the [nonmovant's] position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for that party," Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990), and the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, "Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Conclusory allegations based on subjective beliefs are likewise insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and do not suffice to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1564 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Hence, when a plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts supported by appropriate evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case and on which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of the moving party. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
The material facts of this case are undisputed. Eagle is contracted by the state of Alabama and the Alabama Power Company to conduct visual inspections of all power lines in the state of Alabama four times per year. (Mayer Dep. 6 .)
National Union issued an insurance policy to Eagle, No: AV 3789892-02, extending coverage to all of Eagle's aircraft for certain types of liability associated with the operation of those aircraft.1 (Policy (Doc. # 19, Ex. 10).) Under a subheading titled "Automatic Insurance for Newly Acquired Aircraft," the policy stated that coverage would be automatically extended to newly acquired aircraft, retrospective to the date ownership was acquired, if Eagle reported such acquisition of ownership within thirty days of purchase.2(Policy at 4.)
On April 6, 2009, Eagle entered into a conditional sales agreement with the Wiregrass Chapter of the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation3 ("Wiregrass/FAAO") to exchange a Hughes OH-6 ("Hughes") helicopter for a Bell UH-1 Huey ("Huey") helicopter. (The Agreement (Doc. # 19, Ex. 1).) The Agreement stated that it was "pending review of all records, determination of the airworthiness on the UH-1 Huey and the ability to obtain a Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Airworthiness Certificate in Restricted Category." ("The Agreement"). Eagle took possession of the Huey helicopter at some point in April 2009. The Hughes helicopter remained in Eagle's possession and in Eagle's name.4
On August 10, 2009, an FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale transferring title to the Huey was executed by Eagle as the Purchaser and by Wiregrass/FAAO as the Seller. (Bill of Sale (Doc. # 19, Ex. 3).) The Bill of Sale stated that Wiregrass/FAAO "DOES THIS 10th DAY OF AUG. 2009 HEREBY SELL, GRANT, TRANSFER AND DELIVER ALL RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS IN AND TO SUCH AIRCRAFT UNTO [Eagle]." Also on August 10, 2009, Eagle applied to the FAA for registration of the Huey. (Aircraft Registration Application (Doc. # 19, Ex. 4).) According to Colonel Mayer, the Bill of Sale was executed only for the purpose of obtaining an FAA Airworthiness Certificate. (Mayer Dep. 50-51.)
Eagle received an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA on October 7, 2009.5 (Airworthiness Certificate (Doc. # 19, Ex. 5).) The experimental certificate required Eagle to provide to the FAA a list of exhibition events, which Eagle sent by letter dated October 7, 2009. (Program Letter (Doc. # 19, Ex. 6).) On October 27, 2009, the FAA responded to the letter, requesting an "[identification of] the registered aircraft owner." (FAA Request (Doc. # 19, Ex. 7).) Eagle replied to the FAA's request on November 15, 2009, stating that "The Bell UH-1 Huey helicopter is owned by Eagle Aviation Academy, LLC." (Eagle Resp. to FAA Request (Doc. # 19, Ex. 8).) On November 19, 2009, Eagle requested a change of the registration number on the Huey, stating that the "helicopter is registered to Eagle Aviation Academy, LLC." (Change of Registration Number Request (Doc. # 19, Ex. 9).)
On December 16, 2009, Colonel Mayer met with Wiregrass/FAAO (at this point FAAO). Eagle agreed at this meeting "that all conditions in the agreement of April 6, 2009, had been met and that Eagle was prepared to complete the agreement and transfer the [Hughes]." (Doc. # 23, at 2; Mayer Dep. 33-34.) According to Colonel Mayer, the transfer of the title to the Hughes was to take place after Christmas. (Mayer Dep. 36.)
On December 19, 2009, Eagle attempted to notify its insurance agent by facsimile of the acquisition of the Huey. The fax transmission was unsuccessful. (Mayer Dep. 38-39.)
On December 23, 2009, Eagle attempted to perform a hover check on the Huey. The engine failed, and the helicopter experienced a hard landing, causing the damage that was the basis for Eagle's insurance claim. On the same date, Eagle notified National Union of the hard landing and of the fact that Eagle had acquired the Huey. (Doc. # 23.)
On undisputed facts, the court is tasked with interpreting the applicability of a contract provision: when did Eagle "acquire ownership" of the Huey helicopter for the purpose of triggering the automatic coverage provision of its insurance policy? It is undisputed that Eagle did not provide National Union with notice of the acquisition of the Huey until December 23, 2009, immediately after the incident giving rise to the claim. Therefore, in order for the Huey to have been covered under Eagle's policy, Eagle must have acquired the helicopter on or after November 23, 2009. If, as National Union alleges, Eagle "acquire[d] ownership" on August 10, 2009, when it possessed the Huey helicopter and executed the FAA Bill of Sale, the Huey was not covered under the policy on December 23, 2009 because Eagle did not report the acquisition within thirty days, as required under the Policy. If, on the other hand, Eagle "acquire[d] ownership" on December 16, 2009, when it met with Wiregrass/FAAO and agreed that the conditions in the conditional sales contract were met, coverage for the helicopter would have been retroactive to December 16, 2009, since Eagle did, in fact, notify National Union within thirty days of acquisition of ownership. Under such a scenario, the policy would have covered the Huey on December 23, 2009, the date of the crash.
The first determination is whether New York or Alabama substantive law governs this inquiry. Finding that no conflict exists with respect to this issue, the court defers to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial