Court Opinion

ID: 9577424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:34:50.4739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:35.765516
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Were this court to accept the arguments advanced by the appellants, Puritan Insurance Company might very well plead, “Where is our Pilgrim sense of solid right?” In Memoriam, 106 Ga. App. XLIII (1962). While concurring with the majority opinion’s rejection of those arguments, I also note that it would appear no coverage existed under the policy because the flight was unauthorized.
It is unclear from the record whether the drinks of scotch, champagne, and brandy consumed by Justice and his fellow employees, over a five to six-hour period at a bar, distorted and dimmed their awareness or discernment of the disconnection of the torque sensor lines, but it was undisputed that the midnight helicopter flight by Justice and two fellow employees, accompanied by three women (two of whom they had met for the first time that night at a bar), was a purely personal “joy ride.” This “joy ride” was unconnected to any commercial or air ambulance use for which the named insured, Metro Ambulance Service, Inc., had taken out the insurance policy.
The insurance policy defined “insured” as “Not only the named insured, but also any person while using or riding in the aircraft. . . provided the actual use is with the expressed permission of the named insured.” (Emphasis supplied.) Metro Ambulance Service denied extending permission to Justice and the two fellow employees for that personal use of the helicopter, and no evidence of such permission was adduced. There would be no coverage for the incident in this case, because Justice, his fellow employees, and their companions were not insureds, under the simple and clear terms of the policy. However, although the appellee raised the issue of permissive use in its complaint, the only basis for summary judgment asserted by the appellee and considered by the trial court was the airworthiness certificate issue, and our affirmance must be based on that latter issue. In any event, by denying Justice, under the facts here, justice is served.
*672Decided September 16, 1987
Rehearings denied October 29, 1987
James D. Hogan, William T. Casey, Jr., for appellant (case no. 74651).
George B. Haley, Frank F. Rox, for appellant (case no. 74652).
W. Fred Orr II, James G. Edwards II, for appellants (case no. 74653).
Sewell K. Loggins, John J. Wiles, for appellee.