Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

December 14, 2018 | Blog Post| Drone Accident Excluded Under CGL Policy's Aircraft Exclusion

In the most recent edition of our book, Butler on Drones, we reported that ISO has issued specific exclusions for unmanned aircraft for inclusion into CGL policies, but it was an open question whether a CGL policy’s standard aircraft exclusion already excluded coverage for liability arising from the use of a drone. A California federal district court has now weighed in on the question – the first to do so, as far as we are aware. And we like the answer.

In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Hollycal Production, Inc., Hollycal Production, Inc., was retained to take aerial photographs of a wedding that took place in April 2016. During the wedding, a drone operated by a Hollycal Productions employee began hovering at eye level next to wedding guest Darshan Kamboj, eventually making contact with her eye. As a result, she lost sight in that eye. Hollycal Productions had been added as an insured certificate holder to a CGL policy issued to the National Association of Mobile Entertainers.

Philadelphia Indemnity first received notice of the claim in October 2016. The General Liability Notice of Occurrence/Claim stated: “Holly Cal Productions was taking pictures at a wedding. He used a drom [sic] and flew drom [sic] too low and it struck a patron in the eye. Claimant: Darshan Kamboj . . . . She has lost vision in eye ....” In an email responding to a request for additional details, counsel for Ms. Kamboj explained: “It was a prewedding function and [Plaintiff's] insured negligently operated a drone, colliding into [Ms. Kamboj]. She bled profusely as a result. Paramedics were called. She was taken to the ER. She underwent surgery. But now she has . . . lost her eye. She cannot see from it . . . .” An email from an employee of Hollycal Production stated: “[A] female guest of the event and victim, Darshan[ ] Kamboj, walked directly into an active person-operated aerial camera drone that was hovering steadily at about eye level . . . . [Hollycal Production] was required to creatively operate an aerial camera drone at all of the events . . . . [M]y son, Satyam Sukhwal, took preliminary precautions both before lifting the drone off the ground and while it was actively hovering steadily at eye level . . . .”

Based on these communications, Philadelphia Indemnity determined that the accident was caused by the operation of the drone. The policy’s insuring clause stated:

We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply. We may, at our discretion, investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result.

The policy also contained the following aircraft exclusion:

“Bodily injury” or “property damage” arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, “auto” or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured. Use includes operation and “loading or unloading.” This exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by that insured, if the “occurrence” which caused the “bodily injury” or “property damage” involved the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, “auto” or watercraft that is owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured.

Another exclusion provided that the policy did not apply to bodily injury “[a]rising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of any flying craft or vehicle, including, but not limited to, any aircraft, hot air balloon, glider, parachute, helicopter, missile or spacecraft.” Based on these exclusions, the carrier concluded that the loss was not covered.

Counsel for Ms. Kamboj objected, responding that the drone did not fall within the definition of “aircraft,” arguing that a “drone equipped with a camera is not capable of transporting persons or cargo” and was therefore a “piece of equipment,” not “an aircraft or vehicle.” The carrier then filed a declaratory-judgment action to determine whether it had a duty to defend or indemnify Hollycal Productions for the injury to Ms. Kamboj’s eye. On the carrier’s motion for summary judgment, the district court turned to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary’s definition of “aircraft” – “a vehicle (such as an airplane or balloon) for traveling through the air.” Armed with this definition, the court held:

A drone, as a ‘vehicle . . . for traveling through the air” is an aircraft under the term’s ordinary and plain definition. The ordinary definition of an aircraft does not require the carrying of passengers or cargo. Additionally, that a drone is unmanned and operated remotely does not make it any less of an aircraft.

Accordingly, the court held that the loss fell squarely within the aircraft exclusion, and the carrier had no duty to defend or indemnify Hollycal Production, Inc., and it was entitled to reimbursement for any defense-related payments and any indemnity paid.

To be fair, as much as the legal community would like for watershed cases to involve perfectly crystallized and fully briefed issues, they very often do not. Philadelphia Indemnity’s motion for summary judgment was unopposed by the defendants, so the trial court had every right to grant Philadelphia Indemnity’s motion for summary judgment without explaining itself. To its credit, the court nonetheless addressed the issues in detail, but federal district-court opinions lose some of their precedential value when it is known that both sides of an issue didn’t receive a full airing. The court shrugged off the issue of whether the word “vehicle” necessarily denotes the ability to carry a payload or, for that matter, whether Merriam-Webster got it right in restricting the definition of “aircraft” to “vehicles.”

And there were questions to raise. “Aircraft” is a word whose meaning is well understood but hard to articulate. For instance, most people would think of a manned balloon as a “vehicle,” but what about a small, unpiloted helium balloon? What about a very large one? Why should a camera held at eye level by a tripod be treated differently than a camera held at eye level by aerodynamic forces? Suppose the camera had been suspended from a helium balloon; would it be considered an “aircraft”? And is anything that travels through the air an “aircraft”? What about an arrow, or a paper airplane? Does the answer change if it’s a powered paper airplane? The Philadelphia Indemnity court did not address any of these questions because nobody raised them. Anyone raising them today will have to face a headwind from Philadelphia Indemnity’s new precedent on the issue.

The war is not over concerning the applicability of aircraft exclusions in CGL policies, but the first major battle is over, and the CGL carriers won. There will be others.

For updates on the law as it applies to unmanned aircraft systems, be sure to follow us on Twitter @ButlerOnDrones.

 

A profile photo of Ryan K. HiltonRyan K. Hilton | PARTNER

Aviation, Casualty Defense Litigation, Construction, Extra-Contractual, Third-Party Coverage and Trucking

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

    

A profile photo of James Michael Shaw, Jr.James Michael Shaw, Jr. | PARTNER

Aviation, Casualty Defense Litigation and Extra-Contractual

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

June 25, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips | Little Black Box

Join us for this week's Thursday Tip as attorney Paola Solano discusses the use of ECMs in Third-Party vehicle claims.

Read More »
June 19, 2020 Blog PostIs Amazon a Seller? An Issue Primed for State Courts

The tide is turning as another federal court declares that Amazon is responsible for third-party products purchased on its website. On January 7, 2020, the Southern District of Texas in McMillian v. Amazon.com joined the Third Circuit court of Appeals and the Western District of Wisconsin in finding that Amazon can be a “seller” under the applicable state product liability statutes.

Read More »
June 01, 2020 Blog Post13 Ways That COVID-19 Will Change the Insurance Industry

Some people will have permanent complications from the Coronavirus , which will create a new population with pre-existing conditions. This may result in either more “eggshell Plaintiffs” or in an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition in an MVA...

Read More »
May 13, 2020 Blog PostIt's a Policy, Not a Payday Loan: The Voluntary Payments Provision Deconstructed

From time to time, the issue of whether an insurer has a duty to reimburse a payment made by an insured without the permission of the insurer is analyzed by a court.  A standard ISO form in a Commercial General Liability policy contains the following, or similar provision...

Read More »
May 06, 2020 Blog PostMembers Only: The Eleventh Circuit Restricts Membership to the "Illusory Coverage" Club to Narrow Set of Circumstances

The Doctrine of Illusory Coverage is a common law doctrine that Florida courts have confirmed is a part of Florida’s insurance law. See e.g., Zucker for BankUnited Financial Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., 856 F.3d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017)...

Read More »
April 02, 2020 Blog PostDuke v. Hoch Standard Survives Challenge in Eleventh Circuit

In a recent decision, QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., Nos. 18-13926 and 19-13894, 2020 WL 1228648 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insured failed to carry the burden of proving allocation of damages between covered and uncovered claims...

Read More »
February 28, 2020 Blog PostInformation or Indemnity: Do Certificates of Insurance Grant Insured Status?

Often, a person or entity that is attempting to claim additional insured status under the insurance policy of another will rely on a “Certificate of Insurance” that was issued by the named insured’s agent...

Read More »
February 26, 2019 Blog PostTHE MARKOVITS DECISION: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of a proposal for settlement, the complaint is considered served on the insurer when process is served upon the statutory agent, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, and not when process is forwarded by the Chief Financial Officer to the insurer.  Markovits v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) rehr’g denied (Feb. 5, 2018).

Read More »
January 15, 2019 Blog PostThe Federal Aviation Authority Reauthorization Act of 2018 and Its Effect on Drones

The Federal Aviation Authority (“FAA”) Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the “Act”) was signed into law on October 5, 2018, by President Donald Trump. The Act was the first five-year FAA reauthorization since 1982.  Such reauthorizations provide the FAA with guaranteed funding for the next five years. The Act contains a plethora of supplementary provisions in addition to the provisions regarding the authorized funding of the FAA.  The Act can be broken down into five areas: (1) funding authorizations; (2) airline customer service; (3) aviation safety; (4) airports; and (5) unmanned aviation systems (“UAS”), also known as drones.

Read More »
October 10, 2018 Blog PostRecent Federal Court Decision May Alter the Reservation of Rights Landscape in South Carolina

Only 15 months ago, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court fundamentally changed the reservation of rights landscape in South Carolina. Since Harleysville, two questions have remained: When must an insurer issue a reservation of rights letter to avoid waiving its rights, and what level of explanation is sufficient to avoid waiver?

Read More »
September 19, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence: Civil Authority and Ingress/Egress Coverage

The hurricane may trigger civil authority or ingress/egress coverage for businesses that are not directly damaged but lose income because they cannot access their operations for a period of time due to a governmental evacuation order.

Read More »
September 10, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence is aiming for the Carolinas

Once Hurricane Florence passes through the region, insurance professionals can expect a deluge of claims activity. While both North Carolina and South Carolina have felt the effects of recent Hurricanes Irene and Matthew, for example, many insurance professionals have limited familiarity with the particularized coverage issues which may arise in both states. Navigating the laws of both states, which can be both parallel and disparate, is going to be important in Florence’s aftermath.    

Read More »
January 18, 2018 Blog PostEighty Years After Earhart: Congress Moves to Motivate and Facilitate Women In Aviation

The aviation industry is in dire need of a future workforce. This industry is already suffering from a shortage of qualified individuals to work in all sectors of aviation. For instance, the Forbes article here states that the gap between supply and demand for aviation mechanics is projected to be at 9 percent by 2027.   

Read More »
January 05, 2018 Blog PostFAA Releases Drone Identification and Tracking Report that the FAA Will Consider in Drafting its Final Rule on In-Flight Drone Accountability

Law enforcement agencies want accountability when it comes to drone flights, especially when those flights are over people. Enabling a drone and its owner/operator to be quickly identified by law enforcement is necessary toward the expansion of the authorized use of drones to include flights over people and beyond the line of sight as well as the safe integration of drones in the national Airspace System. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) chartered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) submitted its report and recommendations to the FAA on technologies available to identify and track drones in flight and other associated issues.

Read More »
January 05, 2018 Blog PostRecreational Drone Registration Requirement Has Returned

Back on December 21, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required drone owners to register their drones if their drones weighed more than 0.55 pounds and less than 55 pounds (small drones). The registration was valid for three years.  Basically, anyone who possessed a drone for recreational use had to pay $5.00 to register their drone online with the FAA.  Following that requirement, over 820,000 drone owners had registered their drones. However, in May 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that requirement, finding that the FAA violated its own rule found in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act that prohibits the FAA from promulgating any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft in Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.2d 1089, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 2017). After the Taylor decision, the FAA created a form through which registrants could remove themselves from the registry list and request a refund of their $5.00 registration fee they had paid.

Read More »
January 04, 2018 Blog PostDRONE RESTRICTIONS OVER CERTAIN MILITARY BASES, LANDMARKS, AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FACILITIES

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA’s”) authority to institute airspace restrictions derives from 14 CFR § 99.7, “Special Security Instructions,” which is intended to address national security concerns from the Department of Defense and U.S. Federal security and intelligence agencies. 

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 23, 2017 Blog Post"It's Not Old, It's A Classic!": Risk in Aging Aircraft with GARA Protecting Manufacturers

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”) was a byproduct of aging aircraft, rising costs, and tort liability in the United States.  Congress was concerned that aircraft manufacturers were being devastated by liability costs for accidents occurring long after the planes left the manufacturer.  These liability costs drove up the price for aircraft beyond what the market would bear, and general aviation experienced a sharp decline.  The General Aviation Manufacturers Association reports the total U.S.-manufactured general aviation airplane shipments went from a high of 17,811 in 1978 to a low of 929 in 1994.  As a result many manufacturers stopped making certain model aircraft, including Cessna which ceased production of all piston aircraft in 1986. 

Read More »
August 09, 2017 Blog PostTO FEE OR NOT TO FEE, THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY IN MACEDO II

Due to its holding in Macedo II, the Florida Supreme Court created a situation where, arguably, many auto policies now provide coverage for attorney’s fees and expenses awarded against an insured following an adverse verdict triggering the penalties under a proposal for settlement.

Read More »
August 08, 2017 Blog PostHoly Harleysville! – The Rules Governing RORs, Intervention, and More in South Carolina Have Just Changed

For insurers, litigating third party coverage disputes in South Carolina has always proved formidable.  Insurers can be liable for “bad faith” even if there is no coverage; they may be required to pay an insured’s attorney’s fees if the insurer commences a coverage action against its insured and loses ; and extra-contractual claims may proceed simultaneously with a breach of contract claim.

Read More »
July 25, 2017 Blog PostThat Sinking Feeling: Sinkholes, Florida Law, and Some Questions Raised by The Recent Collapse in Land O' Lakes

The recent catastrophic ground cover collapse in Land O’Lakes attributed to a sinkhole highlights the unique aspects of Florida geology and the impact it can have on the risks faced by building owners and their insurers. In central and western Florida, the land generally consists of a layer of limestone topped by layers of clays and sands. The limestone is a vestige of the shells and skeletons of marine life deposited during prehistoric periods when that layer was at the bottom of shallow seas. Over time, limestone was formed and covered by layers of silts and sands. The limestone is slowly dissolved by groundwater, and constitutes part of the aquifer.

Read More »
July 14, 2017 Blog PostNew Laws passed in Florida and Oregon add to Varying State Drone Regulations

More and more states are adopting individual rules for UAS operations within their borders. These rules vary from state to state.  Congress wanted to take up the issue and regulate UAS federally, but stakeholders including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Drone Manufacturers Alliance, the National Business Aviation Association, and the Commercial Drone Alliance, among others, are encouraging Congress to defer regulation of UAS pending the report and recommendations of the Drone Advisory Committee, the “DAC”.

Read More »
May 24, 2017 Blog PostThe D.C. Court of Appeals Just Scrapped the Drone Registry and May Have Also Turned Homeowners Insurers into Aviation Insurers

Model-aircraft hobbyist John Taylor didn’t want to register his model aircraft with the FAA pursuant to the newly created drone registry. So he took on the FAA, challenging new regulations aimed at unmanned aircraft registration and flight restrictions.

Read More »
April 13, 2017 Blog PostThe Answers to Some of Your Questions About What Airlines Can Do When a Flight is Overbooked and Someone Is Going to Have to Get Off of the Plane

Suddenly, the entire world is interested in learning about the laws governing airlines’ actions when a flight is overbooked. It isn’t every day that the entire world suddenly wants to learn all about something that you’ve spent years studying, so this post is for our clients who insure aviation risks, our clients who are frequent air travelers, and perhaps a few curious strangers who have no business with our law firm but have nonetheless been led here by their quest for answers. 

Read More »
April 05, 2017 Blog PostA Federal Court in Kentucky Shoots Down Drone Airspace Case

The Western District of Kentucky recently granted a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that there is no federal question jurisdiction when a claim is brought for trespass to chattels and declaratory judgment where a drone is flown above an individual’s property. 

Read More »
March 07, 2017 Blog PostFederal Diversity Jurisdiction: Proving Citizenship of Limited Liability Companies

Jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case. Jurisdiction matters at the outset of a lawsuit. It matters during discovery. It even matters after summary judgment. Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Read More »
February 16, 2017 Blog PostSurplus Insurers, Too, Can Rely on the Application to Interpret Policy

Section 627.419 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor or any rider or endorsement thereto.”  This statute has not applied to surplus lines insurers since the “Zota-fix” legislation of 2009, which generally exempted surplus lines insurers from Chapter 627.

Read More »
September 08, 2015 Blog PostNJ: Insurers Still On The Hook To Pay Innocent Parties Under Fraudulent Policies

The decision offers further guidance in the somewhat inconsistent world of rescission and automobile policy statutes, which – when accounting for the application misrepresentation, policy, and statutes – can be a tricky process.

Read More »
April 08, 2015 Blog PostFourth Circuit Sets Stage For Interpreting Contingent Business Interruption

CBI insurance provides coverage for loss of sales or revenue sustained when business is interrupted due to property damage that occurs away from the insured premises and, consequently, disrupts the flow of goods and services from/to a supplier or customer (referred to as the “dependent” or “contributing” properties). There are a limited number of cases discussing issues relating to CBI insurance; and the Fourth Circuit’s ruling provides greater clarity as to what constitutes a “direct” supplier, which is a common...

Read More »
April 06, 2015 Blog PostIt's a "Storm Surge" -- not a "Flood"!

Both parties cited to the SEACOR Holdings, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2011) case. The SEACOR case held that flood limits did not apply to Hurricane Katrina-generated water damage. In the SEACOR policy, there were definitions for flood, windstorm and named windstorm. The definition of windstorm and named windstorm did not include the phrase “storm surge,” but the definition of flood included wind-driven water. The SEACOR court held that all damage caused by Katrina was the result of a named windstorm...

Read More »
September 26, 2014 Blog PostWhen It Comes to Sinkholes, Contracts, Statutes and Regulations Do Matter

On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Shelton v. Liberty Mutual, Case number 13-15371 / D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-02064-JSM-AEP. This decision confirms that the statutory definitions for structural damage under the May 17, 2011 amendments to the Florida sinkhole statutes apply to property policies issued after those amendments were enacted. The court’s order reversed the positions taken by the District Court that seemed bent on plotting a new course for Florida jurisprudence.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostThe Emperor's New Property Damage?

For many years, Florida courts appeared to say that general liability insurance policies did not cover a subcontractor’s faulty work that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. That all changed with the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in United States Fire Insurance Company v. J.S.U.B., Inc., in 2007. In J.S.U.B. the court found that present GL policies covered the faulty work of a subcontractor that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. The reasoning used by the J.S.U.B. court to reach that conclusion would seem to also apply to claims for property damage to a subcontractor’s work that resulted from the subcontractor’s faulty work. However, courts applying Florida law have not yet found this to be so, and in fact say just the opposite.

Read More »