BROADCASTS.com

Injured by an Aircraft Fuselage Arose Out of Ownership of Aircraft\n\nPost 4727\nA woman was severely injured while moving an inoperable airplane. She \nnow seeks to recover from her husband's homeowner's insurance policy. \nThe insurance policy excludes injuries "arising out of" the ownership, \nmaintenance, use, loading or unloading of an aircraft. The policy \nfurther defines "aircraft" as "any conveyance used or designed for \nflight."\n\nIn Lisa Thompson v. United Services Automobile Association and Matthew \nMrzena, No. S-18462, Supreme Court of Alaska (January 26, 2024) the \nSupreme Court resolved the dispute over interpretation of the policy \nwording.\n\nFACTS\n\nClaiming that the policy should cover her injury because in her view the\n aircraft became mere "parts" after her husband removed the wings, \nelevators, and tail rudder. The superior court disagreed, concluding \nthat the fuselage was still an "airplane" and that, in any event, her \ninjuries arose from her husband's ownership of the aircraft. The court \ndetermined that her injuries were therefore not covered by the policy.\n\nAround 2011 Matthew Mrzena purchased a 1946 Piper PA-12 airplane \n(Piper). Mrzena stopped using the Piper in 2014 when it failed an annual\n inspection and was deemed no longer airworthy. Mrzena removed the \nwings, tail rudder, and elevators from the fuselage, leaving the \nremainder of the fuselage and many other parts intact, including the \nwheeled landing gear, propeller, seats, windows, and engine. Mrzena kept\n the Piper in a plastic temporary garage at his home in Palmer, Alaska.\n\nIn 2019, Mrzena purchased a new residence where he planned to live with \nhis now-wife Lisa Thompson. During the summer Thompson and Mrzena were \nin the process of moving their belongings, including the Piper, to the \nnew home. As part of the move the Piper needed to be pushed out of the \ngarage and onto a trailer. Mrzena was pushing from the back of the \nPiper, with Thompson at the front, when Thompson became pinned under the\n Piper's nose. Thompson's resulting injuries were severe.\n\nAt the time of the injury Mrzena had the Piper registered as an aircraft\n with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He also held an \naircraft owner-specific liability policy on the Piper with Avemco \nInsurance Company (Avemco). Throughout his ownership of the Piper, \nMrzena continued to renew both the Piper's FAA registration and the \nAvemco aircraft policy.\n\nDISCUSSION\n\nInterpreting USAA's aircraft exclusion pursuant to the reasonable \nexpectations of the lay insured, the Supreme Court concluded that the \npolicy's exclusion of coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership\n or maintenance of an aircraft applies to exclude coverage for \nThompson's injuries. \n\nThe USAA policy broadly excludes coverage for bodily injury "arising out\n of"\xa0 ownership and maintenance of an aircraft. This language supports \nthe reasonable expectation that Thompson's injuries would not be covered\n because Mrzena and Thompson's movement of the fuselage, and her \nresulting injuries, "ar[ose] out of" Mrzena's ownership and maintenance \nof the Piper.\n\nReasonable plane owners would not expect that their planes cease to be \naircraft solely because the aircraft had been partially disassembled to \nperform maintenance.\n.\n\nZALMA OPINION\n\nCommon sense exists in the Alaska Supreme Court. An aircraft under \nrepair is still an aircraft even if it cannot fly. The Plaintiff was \ninjured while she an her husband were moving the aircraft to a new home \nwhere the intended repairs could continue. Therefore, the Plaintiff and \nher husband were involved in the ownership, maintenance use of an \naircraft and the exclusion applies.\n\n(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\n\n\n\n Go to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 \nhttp://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.