Court Opinion

ID: 9934520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:54:09.645766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:26.918780
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result to reverse the trial court's summary judgment. I agree with the holding of the opinion with respect to each addressed ambiguity except the last sentence of paragraph 23 (d). While hindsight suggests that more precise language could have been used, it seems reasonably clear that this sentence, when used in the context of the entire paragraph, requires that the twin-engine aircraft be instrument equipped. No reasonable interpretation, in my opinion, can relate the term "instrument equipped" to any of the other three aircraft.
Nevertheless, I agree to reverse because I am not sure the term "instrument equipped," as used in the lease agreement, is the same thing as the term used in the trial court's order, "instrument rated." In other words, I would hold that if Hill, as a matter of fact, does not have an instrument-equipped twin-engine aircraft, it is in violation of the lease agreement as a matter of law.
ALMON and SHORES, JJ., concur. *Page 234