Court Opinion

ID: 9772973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:34:13.920734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.527164
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the results of the court’s opinion. However, I disagree with the court’s statement that the clause, “There is no coverage under the policy if the aircraft ... airworthiness certificate is not in full force and effect” is susceptible of only one reasonable construction and that it is, therefore, unambiguous. The reason for my position is stated by the court in the following paragraph of the opinion where it states:
Moreover, under federal law, there are hundreds of requirements that the inspection must meet in order for an airworthiness certificate to be effective. See Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding & Alteration Requirements, 14 C.F.R. Part 43; General Operation & Flight Rules, 14 C.F.R. Part 91. Some of these are substantial, some technical. It would be virtually impossible for an insured to know whether his certificate was valid.
The above, by its own terms, is a good description of ambiguity. If the insurer desires to exclude coverage whenever the aircraft has not had an annual inspection within the last twelve months, it should say just that.
The exclusionary clause in the present policy was ambiguous and should be strictly construed so as to provide coverage.