South Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Broach
| Decision Date | 05 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22673,22673 |
| Citation | 291 S.C. 349,353 S.E.2d 450 |
| Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Andrew W. BROACH, d/b/a Andy's Aviation, Appellee. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
George C. Kosko, Columbia, and Daphne Sipes, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
Ronald M. Childress, Columbia, and Edward E. Saleeby and James C. Cox, Hartsville, for appellee.
The following question has been certified to this Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
Must an insurer, to avoid liability, show a causal connection between a loss and an exclusion in an aircraft policy, when the exclusion states:
"This Policy does not apply: ... to any occurrence or to any loss or damage occurring while the aircraft is operated in flight by other than the pilot or pilots set forth under Item 7 of the Declarations,"
and Item 7 of the Declarations states:
"Pilot Clause: Only the following pilot or pilots holding valid and effective pilot and medical certificates with ratings as required by the Federal Aviation Administration for the flight involved will operate the aircraft in flight: See Endorsement # 2,"
and Endorsement # 2 states:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that Item 7 of the policy declarations shall be completed to read as follows:
*Any student, private or commercial pilot.
All operations of an aircraft by a student pilot must be under the direct supervision of a properly qualified FAA certified flight instructor, who shall have specifically approved each flight undertaken by the student prior to takeoff."
Appellee's (Broach's) aircraft was lost at sea while being flown by a student pilot who was licensed to fly. The student pilot, however, had not obtained specific approval from his instructor prior to takeoff, within the meaning of the above exclusion, and Appellant (Insurer) denied coverage. The United States District Court entered judgment in favor of Broach, holding that Insurer had failed to show a causal connection between the exclusion and the loss.
The majority rule is that an insurance exclusion is effective whether or not there is any causal connection between the excluded risk and the loss. E.g., Di Santo v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 489 F.Supp. 1352 (E.D.Pa.1980) (). This Court, however, has expressly rejected the majority rule and embraced the "modern trend," holding that an insurance exclusion does not limit coverage unless it is causally related to the loss. South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Collins, 269 S.C. 282, 237 S.E.2d 358 (1977); McGee v. Globe Indemnity Co., 173 S.C. 380, 175 S.E. 849 (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Best
...this precise question. However, the court recently reaffirmed the causal connection requirement in South Carolina Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Broach, 291 S.C. 349, 353 S.E.2d 450 (1987). There, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified the question of whether an insure......
-
Jenkins v. Montgomery Industries, Inc.
...employer establish a causative connection between the injuries suffered and the intoxication claimed. South Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Broach, 291 S.C. 349, 353 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1987); Outlaw, 119 S.E.2d at The district court did not err in reading this well-established rule into the Plan......
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Riley
...a causal connection between [the] loss and [the] exclusion[,]’ " Id. at 339, 554 S.E.2d at 874 (quoting S.C. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Broach , 291 S.C. 349, 351, 353 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1987) ). In particular, the Court found persuasive the analysis of the Missouri Court of Appeals in a similar dog......
-
SC FARM BUREAU MUT. INS. v. SECURE
...between a loss and an exclusion before the exclusion will limit coverage under the policy." South Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Broach, 291 S.C. 349, 351, 353 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1987). At the beginning of both policy exclusions relied on by Farm Bureau are the words "arising out of." In McPher......