U.S. Aviation Underwriters v. Van Houtin

• Decision Date: 25 July 1984
• Docket Number: Nos. 83-1949,83-2146,s. 83-1949
• Citation: 453 So.2d 475
• Parties: UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Mack VAN HOUTIN and Sharon Rose Van Houtin, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 475

453 So.2d 475

UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Mack VAN HOUTIN and Sharon Rose Van Houtin, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 83-1949, 83-2146.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

July 25, 1984.

Martin L. Garcia of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellant/cross-appellee.

William C. Gregg, III, Clearwater, for appellees/cross-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

United States Aviation Underwriters seeks reversal of a final summary judgment and award of attorney's fees entered in favor of the appellees, its insureds. The trial court's judgment had the effect of holding that appellees were insured for physical damage coverage under the provisions of an aircraft policy issued by appellant. We agree with appellant that under the circumstances of this case, the policy did not provide such coverage. We reverse.

Appellees, Mac Van Houtin and Sharon Rose Van Houtin, obtained aircraft insurance on their airplane from appellant, United States Aviation Underwriters. The airplane was damaged during the policy period when Mac Van Houtin overshot a runway while attempting to land. The appellant denied coverage for physical damage because of Mac Van Houtin's flying status at the time of the accident. However, the policy contained a lienholder's endorsement under which appellant was obligated to pay Cessna Finance Corporation for damages to the aircraft up to the amount of Cessna's lien without regard to coverage defenses. Therefore, appellant paid Cessna $14,750 representing the full amount of its lien.

Appellant then sued appellees for reimbursement of its payment to Cessna. ¹ The court ultimately entered final summary judgment and an award of attorney's fees for the appellees, holding that appellant's policy provided physical damage coverage for the accident. The only issue we discuss in this appeal concerns coverage.

The policy contained five printed sections, a coverage summary page, and several endorsements. The first printed section contained general provisions, the second described liability coverage, the third described physical damage coverage, the fourth described medical coverage, and the fifth described coverage for other aircraft. The coverage summary page specified the limits of appellees' liability coverage, physical damage coverage, and medical coverage and included a pilots addendum which named Mac Van Houtin as the authorized pilot providing he met certain qualification requirements.

The first section of the policy which was applicable to all coverages contained the following provision:

Limitations on use. To be covered under this policy the aircraft must be owned, maintained or used only for the purpose described on the Coverage Summary page and flown only by a pilot or pilots described there. The aircraft must also be registered under a "Standard" Category Airworthiness Certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or its foreign equivalent.

Three weeks after the policy was issued but before the accident occurred, endorsement number 4 ² was added, which provided:

This endorsement amends your coverage as follows:

1. The "Pilots" section shown on the Coverage Summary Page is changed to read:

"Pilots"

A) Mac Van Houtin or Greg Van Houtin each holding an FAA Pilot Certificate. Each flight by Mac Van Houtin or Greg Van Houtin while holding a Student Pilot Certificate shall be under the direct supervision or have the specific approval of a pilot holding an FAA Flight Instructor Rating.

B) Any pilot holding an FAA Private Pilot Certificate who has flown a minimum of 300 hours as Pilot In Command, at least 10 hours of which shall have been in Cessna aircraft.

2. "Your Liability Coverage" shown on Page 2 and 3 of your policy will not cover claims made against you by passengers while Mac Van Houtin or Greg Van Houtin is operating the aircraft under a Student Pilot Certificate unless accompanied by a pilot holding an FAA Flight Instructor Certificate.

3. "Your Medical Coverage" shown on Page 5 of your policy will not cover Medical Expense while Mac Van Houtin or Greg Van Houtin is operating the aircraft with passengers under a Student Pilot Certificate unless accompanied by a pilot holding an FAA Flight Instructor Rating.

It was undisputed that at the time of the accident Mac Van Houtin held only a Student Pilot Certificate and was not operating the airplane under the direct supervision or with the specific approval of a pilot holding an FAA flight instructor rating. Appellant argues that there was no physical damage coverage because Mac Van Houtin did not meet the limitations on use required by paragraph 1(A) of endorsement number 4. Appellees respond that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the endorsement had the effect of creating...