{ "id": 3587717, "name": "MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRUNO CASTELLANO, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Monarch Insurance Co. of Ohio v. Castellano", "decision_date": "1988-11-17", "docket_number": "No. 87\u20141815", "first_page": "849", "last_page": "853", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "176 Ill. App. 3d 849" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "181 N.E.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 2d 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5263639 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/35/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 N.E.2d 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 829", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3232619 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/80/0829-01" ] }, { "cite": "651 F.2d 838", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1245254 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "840" }, { "page": "840" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/651/0838-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 F.2d 1058", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 870130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/578/1058-01" ] }, { "cite": "612 F.2d 397", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1411496 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/612/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "784 F.2d 161", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1548356 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/784/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S. Ct. 961", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6163777, 6163702 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "981" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/363/0121-01", "/us/363/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6163702 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33-34" }, { "page": "1047-48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/363/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "514 N.E.2d 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. 2d 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3188258 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "50" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/118/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "521 N.E.2d 257", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Ill. App. 3d 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3473759 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/167/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 N.E.2d 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 Ill. App. 3d 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3511702 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/168/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 N.E.2d 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ill. 2d 486", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3141899 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/105/0486-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 479, "char_count": 7762, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.10194899393748438 }, "sha256": "3f64fb4db28a22f4fabd40ee4b1574c2c60f6d16a66c16385ac1a5bc2d4a1603", "simhash": "1:88f11eec670c7c6e", "word_count": 1223 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:43:30.106689+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRUNO CASTELLANO, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McMORROW\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Bruno Castellano (Castellano) appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Monarch Insurance Company of Ohio (Monarch) in a declaratory judgment action brought by Monarch. Monarch sought a determination of its liability for Castellano\u2019s loss of an aircraft insured by Monarch. The plane crashed 10 miles from the shore of the United States while Castellano was flying to the Bahamas.\nThe circuit court found that the loss was not covered by Castellano\u2019s policy with Monarch because the policy specifically limited coverage to \u201coccurrences and loss happening *** within the United States of America (excluding Alaska and Hawaii), Canada or Mexico.\u201d Castellano argues that the allowance of Monarch\u2019s motion for summary judgment should be reversed because the phrase \u201cwithin the United States of America ***,.Canada, or Mexico\u201d is ambiguous and because there is no causal connection between the territorial limitation and the cause of the loss.\nWe affirm.\nBackground\nCastellano engaged Monarch to insure his single engine plane in 1984. Before he obtained the insurance, Castellano asked if the policy could be extended to cover flights to the Bahamas. Monarch responded that in order to extend coverage, Castellano would need a particular rating from the Federal Aeronautics Administration and would have to pay an additional $50 premium. Castellano did not have the FAA rating and therefore could not obtain Bahamas coverage; he also did not pay the extra premium required for coverage of flights to the Bahamas.\nOn January 21, 1986, Castellano departed from Ft. Pierce, Florida, intending to fly to the Bahamas. His engine failed mid-flight, however, and he \u201cditched\u201d the plane in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 10 miles from the east coast of Florida.\nCastellano filed a claim for the loss of his plane with Monarch. Monarch denied liability because Castellano\u2019s policy specifically stated, \u201cThis policy applies only to occurrences and loss happening during the policy period and within the United States of America (excluding Alaska and Hawaii), Canada or Mexico ***.\u201d Monarch filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Castellano\u2019s policy did not cover the loss of the aircraft. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Monarch\u2019s motion, and Castellano appeals.\nOpinion\nCastellano argues that the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to Monarch should be reversed because the territorial coverage provision of his policy is ambiguous. According to Castellano, the term \u201cUnited States\u201d is open to numerous interpretations. Because of this ambiguity, Castellano maintains that the policy coverage included his loss of the aircraft 10 miles off the shores of the United States.\nMonarch asserts that the terms \u201cwithin the United States\u201d in its insurance policy are unambiguous and should be interpreted to provide coverage for flights within the continental United States and three nautical miles from shore. We agree.\nTerms employed in an insurance policy should \u201cbe given their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning, the provisions should be applied as written and the parties bound to the agreement they made.\u201d (Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brochu (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 486, 495, 475 N.E.2d 872; accord International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1988), 168 Ill. App. 3d 361, 522 N.E.2d 758; National Surety Corp. v. Swissler Plumbing, Inc. (1988), 167 Ill. App. 3d 608, 521 N.E.2d 257.) To interpret the policy according to these principles, the policy must be examined in its entirety and construed as a whole. Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 23, 50, 514 N.E.2d 150.\nIt is generally recognized that the territorial limits of the United States extend to three nautical miles beyond the shore. (See, e.g., United States v. Louisiana (1959), 363 U.S. 1, 33-34, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1025, 1047-48, 80 S. Ct. 961, 981; United States v. Wright-Barker (3d Cir. 1986), 784 F.2d 161, 166 & n.2; United States v. Rubies (9th Cir. 1979), 612 F.2d 397, 402 n.2; United States v. Warren (5th Cir. 1978), 578 F.2d 1058, 1064-65 n.4.) Different geographical measurements, relied upon by Castellano, pertain to a nation\u2019s extensions of its powers for specified limited purposes but do not modify the country\u2019s territorial boundary of three nautical miles from shore. See, e.g., Presidential Proclamation No. 5030, 3 C.F.R. 22-23 (1983) (in order to secure rights to certain natural resources, \u201csovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States *** extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured\u201d); United States v. Rubies (9th Cir. 1979), 612 F.2d 397, 402 N.2 (customs officials employ 12-mile limit for purposes of boat searches).\nIn the context of aviation insurance coverage, when a policy provides coverage for a loss \u201cwithin the United States of America,\u201d this geographical limit includes the continental land space of the United States, three nautical miles from the shore, and \u201cthe outside boundaries of an area within which flights, on reasonable routes, are covered.\u201d (Vargas v. Insurance Co. of North America (2d Cir. 1981), 651 F.2d 838, 840.) \u201cSo long as the plane is on a reasonably direct course from and to geographic areas covered by the policy, the plane [can] reasonably be said to be within the contemplated territorial limits.\u201d Vargas, 651 F.2d at 840, citing 9 G. Couch Insurance \u00a737.1476 (2d ed. 1962) (marine insurance policies imply coverage of \u201cordinary and customary\u201d routes).\nBased upon these precedents we find no ambiguity in Monarch\u2019s policy with respect to Castellano\u2019s plane crash. The phrase \u201cwithin the United States of America (excluding Alaska and Hawaii)\u201d in Monarch\u2019s insurance policy is unambiguous and was correctly interpreted by the trial court to include the continental United States, three nautical miles from shore, and reasonably direct air routes to and from the continental United States. Given this construction, the policy did not cover Castellano\u2019s loss. Castellano\u2019s plane did not crash within three nautical miles of the shores of the United States. Nor did the loss occur while he was en route between points covered under Monarch\u2019s policy. In fact, Castellano\u2019s accident occurred while he was flying to a location which he knew to be beyond the geographic limits specified in the policy. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s allowance of Monarch\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nCastellano also argues that coverage should be extended to the loss of his plane because Illinois law requires a causal connection between the cause of a loss and the exclusion claimed. (See Schewe v. Home Insurance Co. (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 829, 400 N.E.2d 501; American States Insurance Co. v. Byerly (S.D. Ill. 1978), 456 E Supp. 967, citing General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Brown (1962), 35 Ill. App. 2d 43, 181 N.E.2d 191.) The instant case does not pertain to the enforcement of a policy exclusion, however, and Castellano\u2019s argument is therefore insufficient ground to disturb the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJIGANTI, P.J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McMORROW" } ], "attorneys": [ "John Scott Hoff and John. W. Harrington, both of Lapin, Hoff, Spangler & Greenberg, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Robert C. von Ohlen, Jr., and Hugh C. Griffin, both of Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRUNO CASTELLANO, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 87\u20141815\nOpinion filed November 17, 1988.\nJohn Scott Hoff and John. W. Harrington, both of Lapin, Hoff, Spangler & Greenberg, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRobert C. von Ohlen, Jr., and Hugh C. Griffin, both of Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0849-01", "first_page_order": 871, "last_page_order": 875 }