# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Litteral v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0318%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1962 - **Citation:** 370 U.S. 919 ## Text : | Office Supreme Court, us, | Lite toy | IEE > “yf 0@Pre er, ot OE 7 ; ; . ; Sout 5 S MAY f y 1982 3. : Ee ~ , * | RHN F. DAVIS, CLERK IN THE _ Supreme. Court of the United States ih Tobe ib Trews 161. , : ——__ = No. 949 JEWEL GABBARD LIPTERAL ayn LOUIS DYSON, : : . ’ . Petitioners. rs, . INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH - AM ERICA, at ‘ORPORATION - Re spoude nf. 7 ee eee ee CE Di Rese ts PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. (", I. Tate. > Robeson Suilding, Champyign. Hino, ’ ' Joux ALax Appleman, The Maples, Urbana, lines, Attorue Ws tor Petitioners, . y - Journ ALAN- APPLEMAN. Of Counsel. ox & \ THE GUNTHORP WeRPEs FR © TONG COMPARY, Ce Caco Fe ‘Report of Case 2.006.000... Str e uy eee ; o “INDEX. Basis of Jurisdiction . cb inp eee t essa as gag ee Questions Presented for Review 0.7 000.000... oo hie Stateme nt of the ¢ ‘ase -... ie caviar s ae Summary of Argument o7.......,.. AR Sra are Argument PRESS IN MR. ee : Petes NEE CO aL ae ers are Reasons for Allowance of the Writ: The law of Minis requires a liberal construe- tion of these overlapping insurance coverages. . The insurer having promised protection under 4‘overage D ‘commercial use’? cannet nullity _the promised: protection bya “definition: under Coverage B . 4.2.22. e eee eee: furs Aimee aes ts The premiums due under an audit form policy need not—indeed, cannot-—he paid in advance of coverage attaching ...-.... eae ks pee Under Ilinoix law, the certification by the in- « surer t6 the State of coverage applic ‘able to this accident ix a binding construction which eon- trols the right o! of the parties soso eee. . reas ae ee ae 3. The airport poliey also covers the occurrence when the injury resulted from active negligence ? of the insured ’s/emplovees o../.0000 0000.2... Couclusion ..... MS eis wera tke et ee Sere . AUTHORITIES CITED. Alexander v. Barrett, 46 TD. 226 & - _ee AP, oe. 13 | Beer. v. Bee r, 154 Ohio St. 271, 16 x, -E. 2d 415, 11s ° te ER es nae a ¥ D ae J o - ? at oe ¥ ° ad +e - IN THE ‘Supreme Court of the - United-States. Octoser Tero. 1961. ad . * ; No . _JEWE! A. GABBARD LITTERAL axp LOUIS DYSOX,. Petitioners, vs. INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH as AMERICA, a Corporation. ° * ,° Respondent. Ce ennai PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ~ COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. — — - -— To the Honorable ¢ hiet Aastyee and Assen jate Snitices of » the Supreme Court wo the & nite d State the ownership, mamtenance or use of thé aircraft as ‘described in this policy.” (Italics supplied.) The ‘ownership, maintenance or use’? of the aircratt is set forth in Item 6 of the declarations (App. 21) and was | defined as **commercijal’’-—the broadest catagory which in- cluded the lesser categories «and embraced. ** personal, pleasure, family and other business uses”’, “instructin and rental to others’, ‘*transportation of executives, am- ployees, guests and’ customers” (App. 21). i Coverage EF of that policy dealt with injuries to passen- vers, Certaingaire raft were added by endorsement from _ time to time to the policy y tor the specific transportation _of passengers, and special chine etea were paid for that coverage ee 12). oe Sion oe ) The aircraft lidbility policy, in its basic form (coverage D) was inthe a vount of $15,000 for iirjury to each person aml covered ‘tall NC Heensed aireraft owned, Operated, leased or borrowed Joy the named insured’? and expressly provided as follows (App. 24): Armenarr Liasiniry Reportine For ExporseMeNT. ‘Tt is-hereby understood and agreed that: “T. Nutomatic Attachment and Termination, of [” . . ; (overage; = é - “The coverages as iudicated ino the, schedule of Coverages of this poliey shall apply to: all air- veralt Chavinig an ¢NC ceytificate issued by the * United State= Civil Neronantios Xe lmministration awned hy the iuswred-cat the ince ption date of this paliey and shall automatically apply tocamy Sins larly certificated aiveraft acquired by the. insured as owner during the poliey period, This i insurance shall terminate with respect to any aireraft dis posed of on the date of sale of such aireraft of the ’ _ surrender of the legal posse xsion thereof by the ‘insured or upon expiration of this polieyy whieh? ~ ever fnay first decur. : P oe 3 Beposit Premium and Rates: @ ‘The deposit: pre MEN pane able upon inception of. this poliey is $100.00, . : ~The rates for this. poliey are: ; Dak - 8.14 per diy, each aireratt owned or operated, ie he ‘airport poley Was in the amount of SHO.000 for tae da es and covered «App. 13): obligated to pay as damages, ineluding damages for eare and loss of services, becanse of bodily injury, sickness, disease or mentalanguish includifig death at Coverages - Rates ° ‘ o ity * all satis Which the tusured shall caesinge legally ‘¢ é any time reswlting therefrom, sustained ly. any person 1° or eins and arising out of the- ownership, main tenance or use of the airport) premises deseribed in a the declarations: and all operations which are. neces- : ‘sary or incidental to the ownership, maintenance el use of sirid pretiisex as an airport.” ; ee. ~ = That poliey had an exelusion, (f) as follows (Abst. 2x): “to bodily injury or death or injury to or destrue- tion of property caused by or arising out of (1) the existence, maintenance or use of any aircraft sit by, hired by or for, or loaned to the insured or any. aireratt in flight hy or ye the account of the insured. ‘nde the law of {itindi«, a report is required to be filed. “nee Under JIBs Revised Statutes, Ch, 154, ¥ 2242(a, b), a report is required of any accident involving aircraft in A Ss this State with a disclosure as to insurance; ind if no | ir insurance is in fore, the posting of security is required (Appendix to this’ Petition, p. 35). Purstant to. thigs statute, a report was filed by the de fondant insurance com. pany (Abst. 29) as follows: ~ tn Oo 7 ; . 5 . INSURANCE COMPANY: Kindly complete this form and return same to Be ea STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS , al r a CAPITAL AIRPORT s- : . + ACCIDENT nod of g Springfield, Ilinois = ; With regard*to the aircraft lability insurance policy, fir ine-policy holder named on the reverse side hereof. the undersigned insurance company advises you in accordance with the items checked below () _h No poley was in effect on the date of the acendent “ xr? Our policy affords bodily injury coverage of not less than $5,000 § includes passenger liability = - for 1 person $10,000 for 2 or more ’ éxcludes passenger liability _— 3 Our policy affords property damage coverage of not less than $5400 Remarks Grbemnitiy Qronsnner Cg WN. A. by me of Insurance c ompans . i ~ Authorized Men Fork at ; - > =" 7 Pe Av garnishment action was filed by ‘the: injured plaintiff ayd the insured against the insurance company under the - tWwogpolicies previously described. The facts were tipu- lated and appear in the Appendix filed in the Court of Appeals. °The tria! court found that the airport) poliey did not cover, on the basis that the accident arose out of the nse of aireraft owned by the insured: and held that the aireratt poliey did not cover on the basis that the injury Was to a’ person whose injury arose under coverage BK, aud that this particular aireraft was net covered under coverage Kf, The trial court was affirmed spon appedgl, its opinion largely being adopted by the retieying court. The cout reversy involved a diversity of citizenship and: in amount in controversy, in exeess of $10,000,- thereby presenting pe federal question. ba 7 . . ‘ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. - Where an ‘airport ope rator purchases two polici®s from a single insurer—one covering negligence in airport opera- tions, and the other a fleet policy upon all aireraft, h he is, protected by one or both poliei ies when an injury. is‘ re- ceived by ‘the guest, of a. renter or prospective purchaser caused by the negliger nee of airport employees. -A policy which provides or automatic coverage of all aircraft owned or later acquired by the insured is a fleet policy. Under both general law and Ilinois Jaw, it is not necessary that the premium be paid-in advance where a deposit has been made. and the policy by its terms pro- vides for premium payment subsequent to ‘taudit’’ at ‘prescribed intervals. In such event, where a broad defini- tion of: risks insured is given by the face wf the” policy,” “ineluding **guests"’, ‘trenters’’, ete., stich coverage is con- ferred by Coverage D. Since recovery ts not sought under - Caverage EK, such proviso cannot be used fo limit the liability conferred by Coverage D, by employing a stringent definition:of passenger ss applicable to Coverage E. The imsurer > by so Using a broad definition of the word ** pas- senger?* cannot destroy the protection conferred by Cover- age 1D, as defined by the ‘face of the policy the plafntit? not being a passenger for hire but only a gyest ocenpant of the ‘plane, This is especially true where the “parties have dgmonstrated their practical construction ofthe con- tract by certifying to the State of Ilfinois that coverage was available upon this. particular craft and that. it eX: tended to this injury. . Likewise, where negligent acts of the insured 's employ- ees caused the crash to ocear, an exciasion applicable ander & ee the airport policy as to aireraft pwned by the insured did > not destroy protection against the consequences of such negligent acts under the general liability provisions. This is true since such negligence would Have caused the crash to oceur irrespective of the condition of the aireraft or of its ownership. Py . ° ’ ‘ ; > a, ° ° ae ———— ee nets _ e7 ‘ — — ssopuamcees aaatere't “3 > o - ¢ , * . . . . 4 ° , & ° ‘ - € , * Ne = % ° . . * ~~; - al - ‘ARGUMENT. eee When an 1 airport operator pyrehase> from a single com: pany two policies—-orie intended to cover liability arising, from all airpert operations other*than caused by aircraft, and the other: designed to cover liability: resulting from the use of ‘aircraft, he has a right to expeet protection under one or the other. It is our conviction that the policy | contr@ets are ambiguous and deceptive; that the insirance company did not even conceive of its poliey defense éxcept at a later date:—ane- that “the opinion of the Court of “Appeals fails te vive cognizance to the liw of Hlinois con- trolling in thix dropped and ex- . plodes by reason of static electricity. Even though a pra : re F ae * : 5 : 4 > ucts liability poliey would cover the joss, and even though the’ products exclusion would operate once the act of neg- ligence connected with the delivery had ceased, the insured ix nrotected’ since the negligent dropping of the container was within the poliey protection. : | This result is cometinies reached even where there is no act of negligence then voing on, For example, let ous saya heating contractor installs a furnace using bufane, gas. The policy excludes the hazards of butane gas or liability arising dry reason of defects in such appliance or products. The contractor im the course of installation leaves come of the fitfings loose, so that they are in a leaky con- dition. Before he has completed his contract, but perhaps while he is not onthe preniises (in the instant case, the employee was in the aectual-act of directing the. aircraft along the -yunway), butane gas escapes. and explodes. Would that be covered—in view of the fact that products liability coverage or defective appliances installed by the contractor are not covered? Clearly if would be. Boufirell v. Employers’ Liability Assirance Gorp.. ©. A295, 105 VK. 2g 597-at 600, 601,” WSs | Nnother kindred sitaation arises where there is ‘beth n general liability, or premises” policy anda vehicles policy, such as pon automobiles or, in this ease. aircrafts: ‘Tf a portion of the liability arose out of acts covered under Gach of such policies, the courts seek to give protection nnderoth policy rather than to deny it under both. An illustration of such overlapping occurs when a truck — yoliev covers trueking operations inelnding ‘‘loading and } Vy ef . . nN 20 unloading’’, while a second insurer covers premises la- hility excluding, however, any occurrence arising: out of the: operation, maintenance, or Use of. vehicles. A safe is being lewered from a window. preparatory to loading -it inte a truck when the rope breaks; coal is negligently shov- elled onto the sidewalk ‘and left in’ an unlighted pile orthe coal chute is.left open; or a delivery boy carrying a package from thé delivery truck negligently runs into a jedestrian. Now whilr the results may vary where only one type of policy is carried-—where there are both policies in foree, one of them ag least almost always is held to cover: frequently both are required to share the responsibility pro rata; “ind in other situations one is made primarily responsible and the ‘other is made liable for any ¢Xxcess Jiability. There are in exeess of two dozen cases which lay ont these rules, with the more modern authority giving a con- struction to the policy or policies involved so as to extend protection under the circumstances existing. See, by way, of illustratiin, Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. American fidelity and Casualty Company, 22 Til. App. Dd 26, 159 XN. EL 2d 7: °Coulter v. American Employers” Tnsurance Company, 333 UL App. 631, 78 NE. 2d 131; Woodrich Construction’ Compony v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 252 Minn. %6, wo N. W. 2d 412 at 419 (holding all three companies concurrently liable); Lian berman'’s Mutual Casualty Compaony Vv. ‘Employers’ Lia- bility Assurance Corp. C. A. T, Mass., 252 F. 2d 463 (which held only ove insurer liable, although both should -have heen so held). And, as to acts originating upon premises, . see Moldovan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Com- — pany, 1d Mise, 2d 85, 184 N.Y. S. ‘2d 201 at 204, affirmed 185 N.Y. S. 2d 735. a Reasoning from such-cases, and from the general prin- ciples which apply, we think a fair question may be: ** Was a / the matter excluded the true cause of the injury?" We ‘think here that it was not. The occurrence would have taken place irrespective of who owned the aircraft if ques- tion. If the wjury ovceurred because of the active negli vence of the insured’ employee in directing the plane into the air.a layman purchasing stich insnrance would’ expect fo. be covered. And this is the test ordinarily applied by the courts in dejermining whether coverage should be ex tended or rest vieted. “~ | | CONCLUSION. 4 therefore, respectfully sulmitted that a writ et certiorari issue to review the judgment and’ orders of the Courtof Appeals of the Seventh Cireuit, heretofore entered in this cause. Respectfully ~ubmitted, 4 | C. KE. Tare. . Robeson Building, Champaign, Hlinois, nel . o -. JOHN Atax APPLEMAN. The Maples, Urbana, Hlindis, * ; Attorneys for Petitioners. - on 1 Jousx ALAN APPLEMAN, | ars Of Counsel. _ . * ra) Gj ~~ APPENDIX, —_— - Ix rue U’xirep Sratres Covrr or APPreALs fof the Seventh Cireuit. SEPTEMBER Teno, 1961— Jancany- Session, T062 No. 13510 Jewent Gassany Lirtran. axnp | ~ Louis Dyson, Plaintiff-Appellaut. we a Appeal from. the United States Dis- ‘trict Court for the Typemsiny PNscranxnck Company or Nowra AMERICA, a Corporation, es Defe ndant-A ppelle , I linois. , February 28, 1962 — Jefore SCHNACKENBERG. Kwocu and Casrin. Corews Judges. : Ae -Castie, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves a garnish- ment initiated by Jewell Gabbard Littrall, plaintitf-appel- lant? who had recovered a judgment in the amount of $25,400.00, as Jewell Gabbard against Louis Dyson, doing business Hlini Airport. The defendant-appellee, Tir nity Tsuryice’ Company of North America, had in force Liability Poliey.” the other an * Nireraft Liability Poliey.”* . 1 Referred to herein as garnishor. . astern District of ~ two policies of insurance issued to Dyson, one an tt Nirport ” The insurance company deniyd any indebtedness to Dyson, or the possession of any Ussets or claims due him. The District Court, after a hearing on the merits, filed a metae- fandum, opinion containing its findings of fact and con- clusions of law,-and entered judgment discharging the garnishee and dismissing the garnishment. proceedings. The garnishor appealed. The tindings of fact in the origina! action aginst Dyson was introduced in evidence without objectien. The third paragraph of the finifigs of fact states: . Licetoslity cogaatnes* eneby such coverage: shall be as stated herein, subjeet to all of the terms ef this prohies hicev tne reference thereto.” Wonder **Ttem = hal of the prrliet, thy esgriptaen ast thy. mee eraft is: : PAIN Licensed: Mireraft Owned. Cdprenie ced. Leased , OE, Borrowed by the Named Prusured Attached to this poliey of inssiranee are Endorsements" whieh included the fell wing pertinent elatees: *Kndor-ement = 1. , 1 Antomiatic Attachment and Termination of Cover age: The coveranes ais tindieated it the schedule of Coverages of this poliey shall apply te all air eraft having an ‘NO certificate cissned by the 26 United States Civil: Aeronautics Adiministiation owned by the insured at the inception date of this poliey and shall automatically apply to any simi. larly certificated aireratt acquired by. thie insured as owner during the poliey period. This insurance shall terminate with respect toe any aiveratt dis- posed ‘of on, thes date of sale of such aireratt er ee the surrender of the legal possession thereof Try the insured: er upon expiration of this polies. — whichever may first occur. ’ . sd 3. Deposit Prentinm and Rates: The rates for this poliey are: Coverages> Rates : Dak $.14 per day, each aires ant , > 2s owned * d operated Coverage Eo aot provided except at respect the planes deseribed, ine -Endorsement) = Endorsement = 2. In consideration of premium tobe: determinedt ts andit it i ayreed that with respeet to th: following Caireraft only: . rere, Coverage KB. Passenger - todily Tnjury Liatnlity ix amended to read: $20,000.00 each person £650,000,00 each occurrence 2 The rate forc the above: extension. spall be $40) perday owned or operated and shall Foes capopotieraa ble only to: Navion Pipas Tri-Pacer Piper Tri-Pacer Piper PA 22 “« Endorsements 3, 4,5. 6, and Tadd and delete other planes but the Globe Swift aircraft invelyed in the accident wa- not listed or mentioned on any endorsement. 27 | Coverage: D. EB and. F are listed under the *Piswing Agreements" in the provisions of the polices aimed read in ‘past as follows: “ee wy rate ’ “Coverage [Bodily frijurs Laability excluding Pas- cenger= To pay on behalf of the insared all sunis whieli the insured shall bee@me legally obligated to pay cats damages, inchiding damages for care’ and lossot \ ices, because of “bodily injury, siektiess. iscus@© Or mental anguish, incline death at any time resniting therefrom. sustained by any persen or persons other than passengers A> defined Herein, arising out oof the ownership, maintenance or use of the aiveraft a~ de- seribed tu this policy.” : : “Coverage E Passenger Bodily Injury Liability Vo pay on behalfot theansured all sms whieh the insured Chall become legally obligated fo, pay as damages, in ding danciges for care and lo-~ of services, because of Jodily injury, sickness. disease or mental anguish, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sus- tained by any passenger or passengers as defined herein, artsing ont of the ownership, meainteruines or yee of the aiteraft as described in this poliew.” " “Coverage -F--Property Damage Liability * 39°" The * Nirport Liability Policy? in its pertinent provi sions reads: 4 a “Pisnrang Agreement." 4 “Coverage A Bodily Injury Liability To pay.on be half of the insured, provided preminm is charged nniedet Coverage A in the declarations,.all sums which the, instred shall become legally obligated to pay at damages, including damages for care And loss of sens ices, because of bodily injury. stekness, dixeise OF mental anguish inelading death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any persen- or persons ctid arising out of: the ownership. maintenance or Use of the airport premises described in the declaration= ane -all operations which are necessary, OF incidental to the ownership, maintenance er tee of said premises a> an airport.” : °c ; “ oR as ae > ‘* Exclusions” “This policy does not apply : e-* * ‘= > ‘ 2 “(f) to bodily Mhjury or death or injury to er destrue- tion of property caused by or arising out of (1) the existence, maintenauce or tse of any aireraft owned diy, hired by or for, or loaned to the insured er any “aireraft in flight by or for, the account of the in-nred | cs ; “eo or "s * The Insurer claims je ix not Jiable te pay the judgment because the Globe Swift wiveraft Wwa~ not listed under " Endorsement =” of the aircraft policy and under thé air- port poliey the Globe Swift aircraft: was excluded’ by the ll exelusion clause which specifically excepted “hodily injury - ne by caused by or_arising out of the °.© * use of aay air ~ eraft owned by ~ "* the insured * **."’ The purpose of construing a contract of insurance in to determine the intention of the parties, The’ contract of insurance must be construed as a whole. “The -coutract consists of the policy and all endorsements attaches thereto. Morris & Cov. Rhode Tsland Ins. Co. of Provide woe, TOTS, 181 TI. App. 300. f “Contracts of Tnsurance, like, other contract=¢ must be construed according to the terns which the parties. have used. to be taken and understood, in the absenee of spubiguity, jn theig plain, ordinary and properly sanve.’ Yadro vol nited Stites Fidelity & Guaronty CH. 1955, 4 WL. App. 2d 477, 478. If there ix an ambiguity in the contract of insurance it wast he construed in favor of the Ins red. Midwest Dairy Prod- nets v. Ohio lus. Co., 1037, 356 11. 380. Since the Iisnrer ix invoking the exelusion clanse the burden is upon the Insurer to-show that the loss claimed ix within the’ exelu sion. Wilson v. National Automobile .and Cas, Ins, Of. e ‘ ~ ; 1059, 22 TL Ap. 2d 34: Caster s Motor Ins. Corp. TOOL, 28 TL App. 2d OR. . a 4 : . Attachment and Termination of ¢ ‘owwrage.** ° Garni-hor further contends that the Globe Swift aircraft ix covered by the automatic coverage clang which reads: Phe coverages as indicated in the schedule of Cover- ages @f thix policy shall apply to MPaircraft having an ‘NC’ certificate * °°" The policy must be read in its entirety. Nowrad v. Mart- ford Accident & Indemnity Co., Job, IL Li}. App. Al AN. The endorsements must be given effect. 29 1.1. P. § 147, p. 11. Hoffman v. Central Surety A Iusx.’Corp.. Yor, 297 Ii, App. 371. The ** Coverage E*.@ability for passenger bodily injury. ix limited in Endorsement =2 to those air- erdft listed. Other coverage ax provided in *D"" and “i Pd y 5 ~ (30. ; ‘ wy - ° . Py would be .effeective ‘under the automatic coverage clause. Furthermore, Garnishor's interpfetation would also in- crease the risk without payment of the additional premium provided, $40 per day. ue Counsel for Garuishor also contends that because. **Cov- erage E*’ refers to passenger bodily injury liability, and since the Garnishor was in fact a guest in the plane she -would not come within the exclusion. This argument is completely answered By. the definition of passenger in . the policy: ‘*The word *passenger’ wherever used in this policy shall mean atiy Person or persons while in 7. * a aircraft for the purpose of * * * flight or attempted flight therein.”’" FA lg SRS. ars Garnishor further urges that the Insurer waived the exelusion of those planes not listed because on September 10, 1955, after the accident, the Insurer, through its au- thorized agent, signed an accident report and filed it with the Seeretary of State pursuant to. the provision of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1959, Ch. 154, ¢ 22.42. In this », report it was stated that Dyson had a policy covering liability insurance for the: injuries sustained by the crash of tlie (Hobe Swift aireraft. The insurance poliey number, listed in this report was the number of the aireraft poliey.. We conchide that since there was no coverage of the Globe Swift aircraft in the policy, this report te the See- retary of State in itself was insufficient to change the terms of the poliey and provide additional coverage. “The next question is whether the Airport Liability Poliey requires the Insurer to. pay the Garnishor’s judgment. Here again the policy without ambiguity specifically states: “This policy does not apply: ° * * to bodily injury *.* © caused by or arising out of * * * use of any air- craft owned by * * ° the insured or any aircraft in flight by or for the account of the insured.” . - —~—- The Globe Swift aireraft in which the Garni-hor was rid- ing was owned by the Insured according to the findings: - of fact. Fhe exe ‘dusion clause in the policy expressly éx- eluded the injuries reevived by the Gar nishor while rjding in this aireraft. , Garnishor contends that since the accident yas caused ‘by Insured negligently directing Se thindler to take off, the use of the plane was not the cause of the accident and the exclusion clause was evaded. This might be true without ‘the words arising ont of the use of any aireraft owned by the Insuryad. It must be adnritted that ‘arising out of’ is a very broad phrase. Cf. Scimidt v. l Vilitivng’ *Inx. Co., 194 ALR TOSS, 182. S.W. 2d Isl. Althoush aid negligence of the Insured proximately « caused ‘the aAfash and the injuries Of the Garnishor it cannot be denied that the ace ‘ident. and injuries arose out of the “ue of the aircraft, Such construction as urged by the Garnishor ix finreasonable and cannot be ace epted under the wording of this policy. Ch underwriters at Lloyd's of London .- Cordora. Airlines, O © ir. 1960), we 2d G508 Bruce sv. Lumbe rmon’s Casualty Co., 4 Cir. 1955, 222 F. 2d 642. * In addition to what basis been already me aitioned the _polici iex read that the Insurer la] green with the insured, named in the declara tions made a part hereof, in Consideration of the payment of. the premium and in relianee upon t the