INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Is aircraft injury covered?
Around 2011, Matthew Mrzena purchased a 1946 Piper PA-12 airplane. Mrzena stopped using the Piper in 2014 when it failed an annual inspection and was deemed no longer airworthy. In particular, the Piper’s exterior fabric covering was in disrepair. To repair the covering, Mrzena removed the wings, tail rudder, and elevators from the fuselage, leaving the remainder of the fuselage and many other parts intact, including the wheeled landing gear, propeller, seats, windows, and engine. Mrzena kept the Piper in a plastic temporary garage at his home in Palmer, Alaska.
In 2019, Mrzena purchased a new residence where he planned to live with his then-wife Lisa Thompson. During the summer, Thompson and Mrzena were in the process of moving their belongings, including the Piper, to the new home. As part of the move, the Piper needed to be pushed out of the garage and onto a trailer. Mrzena was pushing from the back of the Piper with Thompson at the front when Thompson became pinned under the Piper’s nose. Thompson’s resulting injuries were severe.
During this time, Mrzena had the Piper registered as an aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He also held an aircraft owner-specific liability policy on the Piper with Avemco Insurance Company. Throughout his ownership of the Piper, Mrzena had continued to renew both the Piper’s FAA registration and the Avemco aircraft policy. Mrzena also held two homeowners policies with United Services Automobile Association (USAA) at the time of Thompson’s injuries, one related to the residence Mrzena was moving from and one related to the new home he and Thompson were moving into.
In December 2019, Thompson sued Mrzena to recover damages for her injuries. Nearly two years later, Thompson, Mrzena, and Avemco entered into a settlement agreement under which Avemco paid Thompson $57,500.
In June 2020, USAA filed a separate action in superior court seeking a declaration that Thompson’s personal injury claims were excluded from coverage under Mrzena’s two USAA homeowners policies. USAA moved for summary judgment, seeking a determination that Mrzena’s USAA policies did not cover Thompson’s injuries. Thompson opposed and Mrzena joined her, both cross-moving for summary judgment to establish that the policies covered Thompson’s injuries.
The superior court granted USAA’s motion for summary judgment and denied Thompson’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court noted that aside from applying to different residences, both policies were identical. Examining the policy language, the court noted that both excluded liability for “bodily injury . . . [a]rising out of . . . the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of . . . an ‘aircraft.’” Each policy defined “aircraft” as “any conveyance used or designed for flight, except model or hobby aircraft not used or designed to carry people or cargo.” Thompson appealed.
On appeal, the court said that interpreting USAA’s aircraft exclusion pursuant to the reasonable expectations of the lay insured, it concluded that the policy’s exclusion of coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership or maintenance of an aircraft applied to exclude coverage for Thompson’s injuries. Regardless of whether the Piper was an airplane or a collection of airplane “parts” when it injured Thompson, the injury arose out of Mrzena’s ownership. And counter to Thompson’s argument, the court observed that the superior court did not improperly draw inferences in USAA’s favor. In light of these conclusions, the court said it need not decide whether the Piper ceased to be an aircraft. The court affirmed the judgment of the superior court.
Thompson v. United Services Automobile Association—Alaska Supreme Court—No. S-18462—January 26, 2024.
