Case Name: Jack O'CONNOR and Dan O'Connor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PROPRIETORS INSURANCE COMPANY and CTH Aviation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1982-09-30
Citations: 661 P.2d 1181
Docket Number: No. 82CA0079
Parties: Jack O’CONNOR and Dan O’Connor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PROPRIETORS INSURANCE COMPANY and CTH Aviation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PIERCE, J., concurs.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 661
Pages: 1181–1183

Head Matter:
Jack O’CONNOR and Dan O’Connor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PROPRIETORS INSURANCE COMPANY and CTH Aviation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 82CA0079.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.
Sept. 30, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1982.
Certiorari Granted March 28, 1983.
Sherman & Howard, Michael A. Williams, Ellen W. Reath, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Paul D. Renner, P.C., Paul D. Renner, John R. Rodman, Denver, for defendants-appellees.

Opinion:
ENOCH, Chief Judge.
This is an action by plaintiffs to recover damages under an airplane insurance policy issued to plaintiffs by defendants. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
The following facts were stipulated. Plaintiffs owned and operated an aircraft which was damaged in a crash on September 8,1979. At the time of the accident, an insurance policy issued to plaintiffs by defendants covering damage to the craft was in full force and effect. The policy contained a provision excluding coverage while the craft was "operated in flight in violation of the terms of its F.A.A. Airworthiness Certificate or Operational Record . " In order to maintain the aircraft's Airworthiness Certificate, Federal Aviation Regulations require an annual inspection, to be performed by an Aircraft Inspector (AI), and a regular 100-hour inspection, to be performed by an Airframe and Powerplant mechanic (A & P). The craft had received a timely 100-hour inspection on September 22, 1978, but had not received an annual inspection within the 12 months preceding the accident. A 100-hour inspection and an annual inspection are identical, and the fact that the craft had had a 100-hour inspection from an A & P, but not an annual inspection from an AI had no causal relationship to the accident.
The absence of the required annual inspection formed the basis of the trial court's entry of summary judgment.
On appeal, plaintiffs concede that a technical violation of the regulations for Airworthiness certification existed because of plaintiffs' failure to give the craft a timely annual inspection. However, because this technical violation did not bear a causal relationship to the accident, plaintiffs contend that they should nevertheless recover. We disagree.
Schantini v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 43 Colo.App. 79, 605 P.2d 920 (1979) is dispositive here. Where there is a violation of an express term of an insurance policy and the policy specifically excludes coverage in the event of such a violation, as in this case, the insured is not entitled to recover, and the insurance company incurs no contractual liability, even though there is no causal relationship between the violation and the accident. Because the policy at issue precludes coverage when the aircraft has not had an annual inspection as required to maintain its Airworthiness Certificate, and because it was stipulated that such was the case here, the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Judgment affirmed.
PIERCE, J., concurs.
COYTE, J., dissents.