330_C009

NOTE – This is from our older court case archives. It may involve situations that are inapplicable to newer coverage forms. Please be aware of this possibility when reading and using this case.

---

Student Pilot Endorsement Violation Negated Coverage

---

Aviation

Permissive Operator

An Approved Pilots Endorsement, made part of an Aircraft policy, stated, in pertinent part: “In consideration of the premium for which this Policy is written, it is understood and agreed that the coverage afforded by this Policy shall apply only while the aircraft is operated in flight by the pilot(s) designated below and then only if the said pilot(s) is properly certificated and rated by the F.A.A, as shown below, has the minimum flying experience, all as indicated below, and in addition holds a valid and current medical certificate of the appropriate class. . . any person providing he holds a Certificate designating him a: Student Pilot, provided that each flight while a Student Pilot shall be under the direct supervision of and be specifically approved by a Certified Flight Instructor.”

A young woman, properly certified, took a flying lesson with her instructor in a plane owned by her father’s company. On returning to the airport, the instructor left and she waited in the plane for a friend, whom she invited to go flying. She became lost, ran out of fuel and crash-landed with only minor injuries to her passenger and her, but total loss of the plane. Litigation followed denial of coverage by the insurer on the basis of non-compliance with the Student Pilot Endorsement.

The flight instructor swore in an affidavit that the student pilot had his approval to make solo flights without his physical presence, including takeoffs, landings, various maneuvers and short trips. The insurer, however, quoted pertinent Federal Aviation Regulations defining solo flight a “that flight time during which a student pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft …”

The appeal court found that the student pilot failed to adhere to the terms of the Student Pilot Endorsement on the Aircraft policy, by violating the flight approval parameters fixed by her instructor and the F.A.R. prohibition of student pilots carrying passengers. Accordingly, the court affirmed a judgment of the trial court that the loss of the aircraft was not covered by the policy.

Johnson Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants V. Security Insurance Company of Hartford Et Al., Defendants, Appellees. Illinois Appellate Court, Second District. No. 84-590. August 2, 1985. CCH 1985-86 Fire and Casualty Cases 1217.