Ranger Ins. Co. v. Lamppa

Decision Date13 May 1977
Docket NumberCA-CIV
Citation563 P.2d 923,115 Ariz. 124
PartiesRANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Appellant, v. Ernest LAMPPA dba World Adventurers Travel Club, Appellee. ,13284.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
Fennemore, Craig, von Ammon & Udall by Jerome B. Shultz, Phoenix, for appellant

Moran & Keil by John P. Moran, Phoenix, for appellee.

NELSON, Presiding Judge.

This cause is here as a result of summary judgment being granted in favor of the appellee, Ernest Lamppa, d/b/a World Adventurers Travel Club (Lamppa), and against appellant Ranger Insurance Company (Ranger), for a claim of loss under an all-risk insurance policy covering a DC--7C aircraft leased by Lamppa. The sole question on appeal is whether the loss is covered by Coverage F or Coverage G of the policy in question. If Coverage F is applicable, as found by the trial court, the judgment must be affirmed; if Coverage G governs, Lamppa cannot recover since the deductible for losses under Coverage G is $5,000 and the stipulated amount of the loss here is $4,000.

The facts are undisputed. The loss in question occurred as a result of a fire in the number four (4) engine during a maintenance 'runup' of the aircraft engines. At the time of the fire the plane was in storage, its flights having been discontinued, and the 'runup' of the engine was part of a routine maintenance procedure carried out approximately every thirty days. The loss in question occurred when the airplane was stationary, its wheels having been 'chocked' to prevent motion.

The two clauses we are concerned with are set forth as follows:

COVERAGE F

'All Risks While Not in Motion. To pay for direct loss of or damage to the aircraft, hereinafter called loss, occurring while the aircraft engine is not operating and while the aircraft is not in motion under its own power or the momentum generated therefrom, excluding fire or explosion following motion of the aircraft under its own power or momentum generated therefrom, out of which a collision occurs with any object. The amount specified as the deductible in the Declarations shall not apply to loss or damage caused by fire, explosion, lightning, theft, robbery, vandalism or an accident to the conveyance in or on which the aircraft, while dismantled, is being transported.'

COVERAGE G

'All Risks While in Motion. To pay for direct and accidental loss of or damage to the aircraft, hereinafter called loss, occurring while the aircraft is in motion under its own power or the momentum generated therefrom, or while the aircraft engine is operating, including fire or explosion caused by or resulting from collision of the aircraft with any object and including disappearance if the aircraft is missing and not located for sixty (60) days after takeoff.'

The law governing our review is likewise undisputed. The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law and may be determined by this Court independent of the findings of the trial court. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini, 107 Ariz. 561, 490 P.2d 567 (1971). Contracts of insurance must be construed according to the terms set forth where those terms are plain and unambiguous. Berry v. Acacia Mutual Life Association, 49 Ariz. 413, 67 P.2d 478 (1937).

Where there is doubt or ambiguity regarding contract...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Sparks v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., 15488
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1982
    ...more than one sense, an ambiguity is said to exist and such ambiguity will be construed against the insurer. Ranger Insurance Co. v. Lamppa, 115 Ariz. 124, 563 P.2d 923 (App.1977). In determining whether an ambiguity exists in a policy, the language should be examined from the viewpoint of ......
  • Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martin, 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 1982
    ...of the contract documents themselves. See Bear Brand Hosiery Co. v. Tights, Inc., 605 F.2d 723 (4th Cir.1979); Ranger Ins. Co. v. Lamppa, 115 Ariz. 124, 563 P.2d 923 (App.1977); Hamada v. Valley National Bank, 27 Ariz.App. 433, 555 P.2d 1121 (1976); University Realty & Development Co. v. Om......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Paynter
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1979
    ...the well established rule that in the event of ambiguity, the policy is to be construed against the insurer. Ranger Insurance Co. v. Lamppa, 115 Ariz. 124, 563 P.2d 923 (App.1977); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. O'Brien, 24 Ariz.App. 18, 535 P.2d 46 (1975). This rule applies ......
  • Employer's Administrative Services, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • July 25, 1985
    ...in more than one sense and such construction cannot be determined within the four corners of the contract. Ranger Insurance Co. v. Lamppa, 115 Ariz. 124, 563 P.2d 923 (App.1979). The bond clearly requires that EAS have the "right to govern and direct" the employees before the employees' fra......
  • 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