Opinion ID: 1911244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: has a current and effective medical certificate (unless a pre-solo student pilot)....

Text: This unambiguous language plainly excludes coverage. Moreover, the Club completed a NOTICE OF EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATION on September 11, 1990, less than two months before the accident. The renewal application is four pages in length and mentions several times that to be approved for coverage, pilots must be medically certified. The Club urges us to adopt the modern view which holds such exclusions ineffective absent a causal connection between the exclusion and the actual loss. See, e.g., Bayers v. Omni Aviation Managers, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 1204 (D.Mont.1981); Global Aviation Ins. Managers v. Lees, 368 N.W.2d 209 (Iowa App. 1985); South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Collins, 269 S.C. 282, 237 S.E.2d 358 (1977); Puckett v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 678 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.1984). These authorities form the minority position. A majority of jurisdictions uphold such exclusions even when the loss is unrelated to a pilot's failure to have a current medical certificate. See, e.g., Security Ins. Co. v. Andersen, 158 Ariz. 426, 763 P.2d 246 (1988); Glades Flying Club v. Americas Aviation & Marine Ins. Co., 235 So.2d 18 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1970); Grigsby v. Houston Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 572, 148 S.E.2d 925 (1966); United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Cash Air, Inc., 409 Mass. 694, 568 N.E.2d 1150 (1991); Omaha Sky Divers Parachute Club, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 189 Neb. 610, 204 N.W.2d 162 (1973); Baker v. Insurance Co. of North America, 10 N.C.App. 605, 179 S.E.2d 892 (1971). See also, Noralyn O. Harlow, Aviation Insurance: Causal Link Between Breach of Policy Provisions and Accident as Requisite to Avoid Insurer's Liability, 48 ALR4th 778, 783 (1986). Some states have enacted so-called anti-technicality statutes which forbid denial of coverage in these circumstances. See, e.g., Global Aviation Ins. Managers, 368 N.W.2d at 212 (statute prohibits avoidance of coverage based on excluded use, not causally linked to the loss). In the absence of a controlling statute, those courts which have imposed a causation requirement, even when the exclusion language requires none, have done so on the basis that public policy bars hypertechnical insurance contracts which impose conditions precedent to coverage, unrelated to the loss. Puckett v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 678 S.W.2d at 938. While we have not previously addressed this particular question, we have noted: Warranties normally suspend coverage during the existence of a described condition, and recovery will be denied in the absence of a contrary statute whether or not the condition actually contributed to the loss. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Macy, 88 S.D. 674, 227 N.W.2d 426, 429 (1975)(footnote omitted). This exclusion is no mere formulation to be invoked as an excuse to deny coverage. In fact, it encourages owners and operators of aircraft to obey and satisfy safety regulations applicable to their operation of aircraft. Security Ins. Co. v. Andersen, 763 P.2d at 250. We conclude, therefore, any shift in the method for construing aviation insurance contracts would be better left to legislation. The exclusionary provision of the insurance contract is unambiguous and we refuse to alter this plain language to forestall its effect. Therefore, like the majority of jurisdictions, we must conclude that a causal connection between the accident causing the loss and the purpose of an exclusionary clause need not be proven before coverage can be denied by the aircraft insurer on the basis of the exclusion. Western Food Products Co., Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 10 Kan.App.2d 375, 699 P.2d 579, 584 (1985). The Club's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit for discussion. Summary judgment for Avemco is affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and SABERS, AMUNDSON and GILBERTSON, JJ., concur.