NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENT IAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

DANIEL L. KIRKLAND , Plaintiff/Appellant
,

v.

OLD UNITED CASUALTY COMPANY
, Defendant/Appellee

.

No. 1 CA

- CV 14

- 0427

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV 2012

- 011997 The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes
, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Stone Law Firm, PLC, Tempe By C. Randall Sto ne Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Clark Hill, PLC, Scottsdale By Darrell E. Davis, Mark S. Sifferman C ounsel for Defendant/AppelleeKIRKLAND v. OLD UNITED Decisi on of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

D O W N I E , Judge:

¶1 Daniel L. Kirkland appeals the superior court’s grant of summary judgment to Old United Casualty Company. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND

¶2 On March 30, 2012, Kirkland was involved in an accident while piloting a Focke

- Wulf FW

- 190 airplane

. 1 During the landing, the airplane veered of f the runway and sustain ed damage. According to a report prepared by the National Transportation Safety Board
, Kirkland failed to maintain “directional control of the airplane during the landing roll.” The flight was Kirkland’s first time piloting the FW

- 190

. ¶3 Kirk land

— the plane’s owner

— had purchased ground and flight insurance from Old United

. Old United denied cov erage for damage s arising from the accident
, taking the position Kirkland was not

an a pproved pilot under th e policy. Kirkland sued Old United in superior
court , alleging breach of contract and bad faith.

¶4 Old United file d a motion for summary judgment
, which the superior court granted

. The court awarded Old United its costs and attorneys’ fees
, and this appeal followed

. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12

- 2101(A)(1)

.

1 The plane at issue is a reproduction of t he Focke

- Wulf FW

- 190
, which was a German single

- seat, single

- engine fighter aircraft used during World War II. The FAA categorizes th e plane as an “experimental category aircraft.”KIRKLAND v. OLD UNITED Decisi on of the Court

3 DISCUSSION

¶5 As identified by Kirkland, the issue before us is whether the superior court “erred in finding that [ he ] was not an appr oved pilot under the contract of insurance during his flight.” The interpretation of an insurance contract presents a question of law that we review de novo

. Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co. , 132 Ariz. 529, 534 (1982)

. W e revi ew the facts and the record in the light most favorable to Kirkland, the pa rty against whom summary judgment was entered. Gulf In s. Co. v. Grisham
, 126 Ariz. 123, 124 (1980)

. ¶6 “ I t is well established that parties to an i nsurance agreement may contract for any lawful coverage, and that an insurance company has the right to limit its liability by imposing conditions and restrictions on its contractual obligations .” Sec. Ins. Co. of Har tford v. Andersen , 158 Ariz. 426, 430 (1988) ; see also Pac. Indem. Co. v. Kohlhase , 9 Ariz. App. 595, 597 (1969) (insur er “may lawfully exclude certain risks from the coverage of its policy ”). In Andersen
, our supreme court upheld summary judgment in favor of the insurer because the pilot did not hold a valid and current medical certificate at the time of the crash, which was a condition of the policy

. 158 Ariz. at 427

- 28 , 431

. Interpreting the i nsurance contract, the
court observed that “[t]he language of exclusion, based on a FAA regulation that is obviously related to safety, is clear and unambiguous. ” Id. at 430

. More recently, this Court applied this same standard in a case involving a pilot who failed to log the minimum number of flight hou rs required for coverage under an insurance policy. Pott er v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co ., 209 Ariz. 122, 125, ¶ 11 (App. 2004)

. In affirming summary judgment for the insurer
, we acknowledged the company’s right to “ limit its liability for losses associated with inexperienced pilots. ” Id. at 124
, ¶ 9

. ¶7 The insurance policy at issue limit s coverage to flights flown by “approved pilots” and impose s conditions that must be satisfied before coverage applies:

ITEM 7. APPROVED PILOTS

– During each “Approved Use” as defined in Item 6, the aircraft must be operated in

- flight only by the “Approved Pilots” shown below w ho must have a current and proper (1) medical certificate and (2) pilot certificate with necessary ratings as required by the FAA for each flight

. There is no coverage under the policy if the pilot does not meet these requirements.

Lee Lauderback and Stew ar t Dawson and Bill MuzalaKIRKLAND v. OLD UNITED Decisi on of the Court

4 Dan Kirkland is required to receive a check ride and sign off by Lee Lauderback in the same make and model aircraft insured herein and 25 hours solo in the same make and model aircraft insured herein prior to . . . completing a c heck ride with Stewart Dawson.
Absent compliance with the approved pilot conditions established in Item 7, the insurance policy made clear that no coverage existed

. 2

¶8 T he record establishes that Kirkland failed to satisfy the conditions required to be an “approved pilot” under the terms of the policy. He never completed a check ride with either Lee Lauderback or Stewart Dawson in a FW

- 190

. 3 In deed, Kirkland admitted in the superior court that he had not completed a check ride
, arguing it would be “impos sible in a single seat aircraft ” such as the FW

- 190. FAA regulations, however, state that a practical test can be conducted in a single seat airplane “if the [e]xaminer is in a position to observe the appl icant during the practical test . . . . ” 4 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.63(g), 61.45(e)

. During such a test, “the inspector observes the applicant from the ground or from another aircraft.” FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, Vol. 5, Ch. 1, section 4, § 5

- 84(e).

2 Under the section entitled “General Provisions and Condition s, ” t he policy state s : “When the aircraft is in

- flight, you must make certain that the pilots are ‘approved pilots’ in Item 7 of the PSP [policy summary page]. There is no coverage if this requirement is not met.”

3 Kirkland flew with Lauderba ck in a TF

- 51 Mustang in January 2012, after which Lauder back gave Kirkland a sign off indicating he was ready
to proceed with a FW

- 190 check ride.

4 The regulations provide:

An applicant for a type rating . . . in a single engine airplane with a single

- pilot station must perform the practical test in the multi

- seat version of that single engine airplane, or the practical test may be performed in the single

- seat version of that airplane if the Examiner is in a position to observe the applica nt during the practical test and there is no multi

- seat version of that single engine airplane.
14 C.F.R. § 61.63(g)

.KIRKLAND v. OLD UNITED Decisi on of the Court

5 ¶9 Additionally, Kirkland failed to complete the tw enty

- five hours of solo flight i n a FW

- 190 that was expressly r equired by policy Item 7

. Kirkland concede s he had only “begun to fly up to 25 hours when the accident occurred.”

¶10 As a final and independent basis for denying coverage, the record established that at the time of the accident, Kirkland was piloting the Focke

- Wulf FW

- 190 without proper FAA authorization. The insurance policy required each approved pilot to have a “pilot certificate with necessary ratings as required by the FAA for each flight.” Old United asserts , without contradiction, that on the day of the accident, “Kirkland was piloting the aircraft on an expired FAA Letter of Authorization.” Kirkland contends, however, that the policy did not require him to obtain a letter of authorization or any other FAA authorizations

. ¶11 T he FAA can is sue letters of authorization in lieu of a type rating and will do so in the case of experimental aircraft for which a type rating has not been established. See 14 C.F.R. § 61 .3 1( b ) ; FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, Vol. 5, Ch. 9, section 2, § 1578(A)(1) and (2). “ Issuance of this [letter of] authorization
para llels the issuance of a type rating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regul ations (14 CFR) part 61

. ” FAA Order 8900.1, § 1578(B)(3)

. ¶12 The Focke

- Wulf FW

- 190 is an experimental aircraft
, and the FAA issued Kirkland a “ temporary letter of authorization
, ” authorizing him to receive “pilot train ing and practice” on the aircraft

. T h e temporary authorization expired on March 24, 2012

— six days before the accident. Accordingly, at the time of the accident, Kirkland was piloting the FW

- 190 without FAA authorization.

¶13 K irkland failed to meet several conditions necessary to become an “approved pilot” under the policy, justifying Old United ’s denial of coverage

. See Kohlhase , 9 Ariz. App. at 597 ( “ [W] here damage occurs during the operation of a plane under circumstances as to which the policy excludes coverage, there is no coverage

. ”). Accordingly, w e affirm the grant of summary judgmen t in favor of Old United

.
CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm the judgment of the superior court. Old United seeks an award of attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal p ursuant to A.R.S. § 12

– 341.01

. In the exercise of our discretion, we grant that request and will award Old United its reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs uponKIRKLAND v. OLD UNITED Decisi on of the Court

6 compliance with A RCAP 21

. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arrington , 192 Ariz. 255, 261, ¶ 27 (App. 1998)

.