Issue: Mr. Ueding sold and serviced small planes, and also was involved in the business of crop-dusting. In September 1973, he purchased a new Piper crop-dusting plane from a Florida dealer, and he sent one of his pilots to pick it up. While en route home, the pilot made an emergency landing in a farm field without incident, but on take-off from the field, the plane hit a fence and barn and also damaged the plane itself. The insurance company for Ueding denied liability, since the plane was not listed in its policy, and because it would have been automatically covered only if all of Ueding’s planes had been insured by the company.
Judgment: Only two planes had been listed on the scheduled policy, and the policy provided that newly acquired aircraft were covered automatically only if the company was the insurer for all of the insured’s aircraft at the time of acquisition. Ueding conceded that not all of his planes were so insured, but Ueding testified that all of his insurance was procured through the same agency and underwriter.
The insured contended that the newly acquired plane was covered under the provisions of the Reporting Form Policy endorsement, which provided as follows:
"AIRCRAFT COVERED
¾ The insurance afforded under this Policy shall apply to all standard licensed Fixed Wing Land aircraft owned by the Insured at the inception date of this Policy and shall automatically apply to any additional standard licensed aircraft (excluding any military surplus craft unless specifically endorsed hereon) acquired by the Insured as owner during the Policy period, effective as of the time and date the Insured acquires possession of such additional aircraft."The insured testified that as a dealer in agricultural airplanes, it was his practice to insure those airplanes under this endorsement. The endorsement set forth the manner in which premiums were to be computed and sent to the company along with the monthly reports, which required the insured to report monthly, with respect to each aircraft, the make and type of aircraft license number, the value, and the number of days "the Company has been at risk with respect to each such aircraft. The company shall not be liable for any claims with respect to any aircraft which has not been reported from the date the Insured acquired such aircraft as owner as provided above…"
The insured included the proper information as the Piper in his monthly report the following month, together with the proper premium. The company contended that additional planes could be insured only under the automatic endorsement and not under the reporting endorsement.
The court found the two provisions were in conflict since both provided a procedure under which newly acquired airplanes would be insured, but each listed different requirements. The court ruled in favor of the insured and held that the Piper was brought within the coverage of the policy by using the procedure outlined in the reporting endorsement.
The company also denied liability since the policy did not cover any loss or damage involving the intentional use, except emergency, of any location other than an airport. The pilot testified that a latch on the cowling was defective and had become loose, causing a sharp vibration in the left front cowling (Editor’s note – the cowling is analogous to the hood of a vehicle). He landed in the field, fastened the cowling latch, and attempted his take-off.
There was testimony by both the pilot and the insured that a loose cowling could tear loose and fly back through the windshield and into the pilot’s face. The trial court found that the evidence justified an emergency landing, and the higher court agreed.
The company further argued that while the landing might have been due to an emergency, the take-off was not, but the court disagreed.
The insured repaired the plane in his own shop, and the total cost was $23,637.19, of which the sum of $6,938.25 was for labor. The policy provided that, "When repairs are effected by that Named Insured, an amount equal to 50% of actual wages paid, excluding charges for overtime, shall be added for overhead." The worksheet submitted by the insured showed the number of hours worked by each mechanic, but didn’t show the hourly rates or salaries. The higher court ruled the trial court had erred by awarding judgment for labor for the amount shown on the worksheet, and remanded the action for a hearing to determine the actual amount of wages paid by Ueding for the repair of the plane. The court directed that when the actual wages have been determined, that amount, plus 50% of that amount, should be substituted for the amount of $6,938.25 awarded previously.
The higher court further stated that the trial court did not err in awarding damages in an amount greater than those shown in the complaint, and affirmed the judgment except for the amount awarded for labor costs.
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Ueding, d/b/a/ Ueding Flying Service and Midwest Pawnee Center–No. 1-1276A255–Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District, December 6, 1977–370 North Eastern (2d) 373 (Rough Notes Magazine August, 1978)