Opinion ID: 301239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exclusion two

Text: 31 The second provision of the policy on which Ranger bases this appeal reads as follows: 32 This policy does not apply . . . to any occurrence or to any loss or damage occurring while the aircraft is operated while in flight, by other than the pilot or pilots set forth under Item 7 of the Declarations [the Pilot Clause]. 33 Ranger argues that the accident occurred when the airplane was operated by other than the pilot set forth under the Pilot Clause, thereby suspending the coverage during such activity. However, if the pilot clause and attendant facts cannot suspend coverage, then we find it quite impossible to conclude that Item Two of the printed exclusions works the suspension that Ranger seeks. 34 It is uncontroverted that Culberson flew the airplane, and that Culberson is specifically named in the typed portion of the Pilot Clause. Exclusion Two does not incorporate by its terms all of the Pilot Clause; it refers only to those pilot(s) set forth in the clause. Exclusion Two specifically omits any reference to or incorporation of the printed part of the Pilot Clause, which is the part of the clause that included the phrase while holding a proper pilot certificate . . . with appropriate ratings as required by the Federal Aviation Agency. It was that printed phrase that drew our attention in our discussion of the entire Pilot Clause above. Without reference to propriety or appropriateness, Exclusion Two simply requires that the airplane be operated only by the pilot . . . set forth under Item 7 of the Declarations [the Pilot Clause]. It is our conclusion that the exclusion does not apply to these facts. The airplane was at all times operated by Culberson, the specifically named pilot of the referent Pilot Clause. Under similar circumstances, we have held that a pilot specifically named is clearly covered, even if flying in violation of the regulations. Fireman's Fund v. McDaniel, supra. In fact, our understanding of Exclusion Two brings our case almost four-square with McDaniel. In McDaniel, as here, the name of the pilot was specifically typed into the clause, along with an other pilots phrase similar to that in the Ranger policy. As here, the student pilot in McDaniel carried a passenger when he crashed. In spite of the fact that the company in McDaniel had included almost precisely the same two exclusions that Ranger omitted here, the district court held that the specifically-named student pilot had been insured to fly the aircraft for any purpose. We affirmed that part of the holding. Without further provision by Ranger, McDaniel controls on the issue of Ranger's Exclusion Two, and that exclusion does not bar coverage to the named insured under these circumstances.