This case involved the application of the aircraft exclusion and the definition of "aircraft," both with respect to personal liability coverage in a homeowners policy. The policy, in common with homeowners policies in general, excluded coverage for injuries arising out of the "ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading an aircraft." It was stated in pertinent policy provisions that ". . . .an aircraft means any contrivance used or designed for flight except model aircraft of the hobby variety not used or designed to carry people or cargo."

An insured was sued by a man who was injured when a jumper collided with him, causing his main parachute to collapse, during a group parachute jump from an airplane. The insured was a member of the parachute club and had organized the jump. It was alleged that the insured was negligent for having: Included the claimant in a jump when the organizer knew, or should have known, that he was not qualified to participate in such a jump; that the insured failed to inform the participants as to the elevation at which the parachutes would be opened; and that he failed to make certain that the injured man was provided with a cutaway knife.

The homeowners insurer accepted defense of the action under a reservation of rights and sought a declaratory judgment that its policy excluded coverage for the injuries on the basis of the "aircraft" exclusion in its policy. The insured filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the term "aircraft" was ambiguous or that a parachute was not an "aircraft" within the meaning of the exclusion. The trial court denied the company's motion for judgment and granted the insured's motion for summary judgment. Appeal followed.

The appeal court found that the policy did not define "flight" or "parachute." For the meaning of those words it referred to a dictionary, which defined "flight" as the act of passing through air by use of wings. "Parachute" is: ". . . .a folding umbrella-shaped device usually made of light fabric for retarding the speed of a body attached to it by offering resistance to air and used especially for making a safe descent from an airplane. . . ."

The company argued before the higher court that the aircraft exclusion applied since the use of the airplane for ascent necessarily meant that the accident occurred through the use or unloading of the aircraft. The court observed, however, that the insurer did not raise that point in any of its pleading and oral arguments in trial court and, therefore, waived that point.

The appeal court agreed with the trial court that a conventional parachute, such as that used in the parachute jump, was not an "aircraft" as defined in the policy exclusion. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insured and against the insurance company.

Editor's Note: Most questions arising over the meaning of "aircraft" in personal liability coverage were reconciled when the definition was modified to exclude ". . . .model or hobby aircraft not used or designed to carry people or cargo," or words to that effect. There had been uncertainty over the application of coverage to model planes.

(HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. RUSSELL SHOWALTER, STEVE TREXLER AND PARACHUTE CENTER, INC. No. 1-89-1740. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division. September 28, 1990. 561 North Eastern Reporter 2d 1230.)