holding a court “must adopt the construction of an exclusionary clause urged by the insured as long as that construction is not unreasonable, even if the construction urged by the insurer appears to be more reasonable or a more accurate reflection of the parties’ intent”
How later courts described this case
- holding a court “must adopt the construction of an exclusionary clause urged by the insured as long as that construction is not unreasonable, even if the construction urged by the insurer appears to be more reasonable or a more accurate reflection of the parties’ intent”
- stating the well-established rule that “if a contract of insurance is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation,” the court “must resolve the uncertainty by adopting the construction that most favors the insured”
- holding that a court must adopt the construction of an exclusionary clause urged by the insured as long as that construction is not unreasonable
- holding that ambiguous policy provisions must be construed strictly against insurer and liberally in favor of insured
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HECHT, Justice,
concurring.
I do not agree with the Court that the decisive question in this case is whether the policy issued by National Union covers damage to the insured airplane when in flight piloted, simultaneously, by both a pilot who meets the restrictions in the policy declarations and another pilot who does not. The jury found, in effect, that there was only one pilot of the plane when it was damaged, and there is evidence to support that finding. The Court’s discussion regarding the effect of joint pilots on coverage under the policy is thus only dicta.
The evidence in this case does not establish conclusively who was piloting the airplane at the time it was damaged. Hudson and Bishop were both seated behind full controls, and in the course of landing the plane and before it came to a stop, each of them was able to, and did, exercise full, exclusive control of the plane. Hudson testified that he was piloting the plane when it landed on the nose wheel, that Bishop took over to bring it down on the main gear, and that he, Hudson, then resumed control of landing the plane. Bishop testified that from the time the plane started to veer off the runway until it turned over he took the controls and did not relinquish them to Hudson. There is also evidence, however, that Hudson and Bishop shared control of the plane at various critical times. For example, Hudson testified that “the airplane was being operated at the time of the loss by both Rodney Bishop and myself.” In short, the jury might have concluded from the evidence that at the time the mistake occurred which led to the ultimate damage to the plane, it was being piloted by Hudson solely, by Bishop solely, or by both simultaneously.
The jury found that at the time of the loss “[t]he aircraft was not in flight piloted by other than a pilot or pilots designated in the [policy] declarations.” Hudson, because he did not meet specified qualifica *557 tions, was not within the declarations; Bishop was. If the jury believed that Hudson was piloting the plane at the time of the loss, either by himself or together with Bishop, then it could not have made the finding it did. Rather, it would have had to find that the aircraft was piloted — whether solely or jointly — by other than a pilot designated in the declarations, namely, Hudson. The jury’s finding, supported by some evidence, resolves the factual controversy of who was piloting the plane: Bishop.
If Bishop was the sole pilot of the plane at the time it was damaged, then the damage was covered under the policy. It is unnecessary to decide, as the Court attempts to do, whether coverage would also exist if Bishop and Hudson were joint pilots. Accordingly, I join the Court in its judgment but not in its opinion.
PHILLIPS, C.J., and COOK and CORNYN, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.