Injured by an Aircraft Fuselage Arose Out of Ownership of Aircraft

Post 4727
A woman was severely injured while moving an inoperable airplane. She
now seeks to recover from her husband's homeowner's insurance policy.
The insurance policy excludes injuries "arising out of" the ownership,
maintenance, use, loading or unloading of an aircraft. The policy
further defines "aircraft" as "any conveyance used or designed for
flight."

In Lisa Thompson v. United Services Automobile Association and Matthew
Mrzena, No. S-18462, Supreme Court of Alaska (January 26, 2024) the
Supreme Court resolved the dispute over interpretation of the policy
wording.

FACTS

Claiming that the policy should cover her injury because in her view the
aircraft became mere "parts" after her husband removed the wings,
elevators, and tail rudder. The superior court disagreed, concluding
that the fuselage was still an "airplane" and that, in any event, her
injuries arose from her husband's ownership of the aircraft. The court
determined that her injuries were therefore not covered by the policy.

Around 2011 Matthew Mrzena purchased a 1946 Piper PA-12 airplane
(Piper). Mrzena stopped using the Piper in 2014 when it failed an annual
inspection and was deemed no longer airworthy. 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 now-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.

At the time of the injury 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 (Avemco). Throughout his ownership of the Piper,
Mrzena continued to renew both the Piper's FAA registration and the
Avemco aircraft policy.

DISCUSSION

Interpreting USAA's aircraft exclusion pursuant to the reasonable
expectations of the lay insured, the Supreme Court concluded that the
policy's exclusion of coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership
or maintenance of an aircraft applies to exclude coverage for
Thompson's injuries.

The USAA policy broadly excludes coverage for bodily injury "arising out
of"  ownership and maintenance of an aircraft. This language supports
the reasonable expectation that Thompson's injuries would not be covered
because Mrzena and Thompson's movement of the fuselage, and her
resulting injuries, "ar[ose] out of" Mrzena's ownership and maintenance
of the Piper.

Reasonable plane owners would not expect that their planes cease to be
aircraft solely because the aircraft had been partially disassembled to
perform maintenance.
.

ZALMA OPINION

Common sense exists in the Alaska Supreme Court. An aircraft under
repair is still an aircraft even if it cannot fly. The Plaintiff was
injured while she an her husband were moving the aircraft to a new home
where the intended repairs could continue. Therefore, the Plaintiff and
her husband were involved in the ownership, maintenance use of an
aircraft and the exclusion applies.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.



Go to the Insurance Claims Library –
http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.

---

Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support