{
  "id": 8555062,
  "name": "GENE BAKER v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Insurance Co. of North America",
  "decision_date": "1971-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 7111SC84",
  "first_page": "605",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 605"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "243 F. Supp. 276",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        407426
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/243/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 F. Supp. 707",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        388450
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/245/0707-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 F. 2d 659",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2009231
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/283/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 F. 2d 642",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        49699
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/222/0642-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 518,
    "char_count": 11101,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3426945582239538e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7923432987791952
    },
    "sha256": "9126c6dcb6a314fbb9372309f5f1cec989847c9e5bbd22ef6c5df85684928f9c",
    "simhash": "1:92d6e7cfd080c885",
    "word_count": 1797
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GENE BAKER v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nOperation of aircraft in this country is governed by Federal law. Title 49 U.S.C., \u00a7\u00a7 1801 et seq. By 49 U.S.O., \u00a7 1421, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency is authorized to prescribe such reasonable rules and regulations, or minimum standards, as he may find necessary to provide adequately for safety in air commerce. By \u00a7 1422(a) the Administrator is empowered \u201cto issue airman certificates specifying the capacity in which the holders thereof are authorized to serve as airmen in connection with aircraft.\u201d Pursuant to authority granted him by Congress, the Administrator has promulgated Federal Aviation Eegulations. Part 61 of those Eegulations (14 C.F.E., \u00a7\u00a7 61.1 et seq.) prescribes the requirements for issuing certificates and ratings for aircraft pilots. Included in Part 61 is \u00a7 61.3, which contains the following:\n\u201c\u00a7 61.3 Certificates and ratings required.\n\u201c(a) Pilot certificate. No person may act as a pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry unless he has in his personal possession a current pilot certificate issued to him under this part. . . .\n# \u00ed\u00a1\u00ed jJ; \u00ed\u00a1\u00ed\n\u201c(c) Medical certificate. Except for glider pilots piloting gliders, no person may act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft under a certificate issued to him under this part, unless he has in his personal possession an appropriate current medical certificate issued under Part 67 of this chapter. ...\u201d\nPart 67 of the Federal Aviation Eegulations prescribes the medical standards and procedures for issuing medical certificates for airmen. Provision is made for examination of applicants by medical examiners under the supervision of the Federal Air Surgeon or his authorized representatives. Three classes of medical certificates are provided for. First-class medical certificates are valid for six months; second-class medical certificates are valid for twelve months; and third-class medical certificates are valid for twenty-four months. The reason for requiring periodical examination and certification as to continued physical fitness of airmen is apparent.\nEven though plaintiff held a valid pilot certificate as referred to in subparagraph (a) of \u00a7 61.3 of the Federal Aviation Eegulations quoted above, by the clear and express prohibition contained in subparagraph (c) of that section, he could not lawfully act as pilot in command under that certificate, since at the time of the crash he did not have the appropriate current medical certificate. Under these circumstances it is our opinion, and we so hold, that plaintiff cannot be considered to have been \u201cproperly certificated\u201d at the time of the crash within the meaning of those words as contained in the policy exclusionary endorsement.\nThe fact that at the time of the crash plaintiff was in apparent good health and shortly thereafter was able to renew his medical certificate is not controlling. An insurance policy is a contract. In this one the parties expressly \u201cagreed that coverage provided by this policy with respect to any aircraft specifically and individually described therein shall not apply while such aircraft is in flight unless the pilot in command of the aircraft is properly certificated. . . .\u201d The clear meaning of this language is not that the risk is excluded if damage to the aircraft is caused by failure of the pilot to be properly certificated, but that risk is excluded if damage occurs while the aircraft is being flown by a pilot not properly certificated. Under such circumstances coverage under the policy simply did not exist, and it was not necessary for the insurer to show any causal connection between the breach of the exclusionary clause and the insured\u2019s loss. Our conclusion in this regard is supported by the decision in Bruce v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 222 F. 2d 642 (4th Cir. 1955). In that case recovery was sought under an aircraft liability policy which excluded from coverage any liability for bodily injury to a passenger caused by operation of the aircraft \u201cduring flight ... in violation of any government regulation for civil aviation.\u201d It was conceded that there was no causal connection between the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate and the violation of government regulation shown. Judgment for the insurance company was affirmed nevertheless, the court saying (p. 645) :\n\u201cThe second contention of the appellant, that the judgment must be reversed because no causal connection between the violation of the regulations and the accident was shown, must also be rejected. The clear meaning of the policy is not as the appellant suggests that the risk is excluded if the injury is caused by a violation of the regulations, but that the risk is excluded if the injury is caused by the operation of the plane while it is being used in violation of the regulation. It is established by the great preponderance of authority in the decisions of this and other courts that an insurer need not show a causal connection between the breach of an exclusion clause and the accident, if the terms of the policy are clear and unambiguous, since the rights of the insured flow from the contract of insurance and not from a claim arising in tort.\u201d\nIn Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s of London v. Cordova Airlines, 283 F. 2d 659 (9th Cir. 1960) a policy of aircraft insurance was issued which excluded coverage for a loss \u201carising from . . . any flying in which a waiver ... is required.\u201d The aircraft crashed while carrying dynamite, for which a waiver was required but was not obtained. The dynamite did not explode and its presence on the aircraft had nothing to do with the crash. The court held that verdict should have been directed for the insurer, since as a matter of law the insured\u2019s breach of the policy \u201csuspended its coverage during the flight which resulted in the loss.\u201d\nTwo United States District Court cases relied on by plaintiff are distinguishable from the case before us. In Royal Indemnity Co. v. John F. Cawrse Lumber Co., 245 F. Supp. 707, the policy provided that it applied to aircraft in flight only while being operated by a pilot holding a valid and current private or commercial pilot certificate, and the court held this language did not require that the pilot hold both a pilot certificate and a medical certificate; the policy in the case before us did not distinguish between the pilot certificate and the medical certificate, but required that the pilot be \u201cproperly certificated,\u201d which in our view necessitates both certificates. In Insurance Co. of North America v. Butte Aero Sales & Serv., 243 F. Supp. 276, the policy was similar to the one involved in the present case except that it contained a second endorsement which excluded coverage unless the pilot was \u201cJack Elderkin or any other pilot who is properly certificated.\u201d The court held that the only logical construction is that the second endorsement was attached to the policy to make the insurance effective when Jack Elderkin was pilot in command, regardless of his certification or rating, but to require that others who might pilot the plane be properly certificated and rated. No similar second endorsement was attached to the policy in the case before us.\nThe judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bryan, Jones, Johnson, Hunter & Greene by James M. Johnson for \u2018plaintiff appellant.",
      "Young, Moore & Henderson by J. C. Moore for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GENE BAKER v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA\nNo. 7111SC84\n(Filed 31 March 1971)\n1. Aviation \u00a7 1\u2014 federal regulation of aircraft\nOperation of aircraft in this country is governed by Federal law.\n2. Aviation \u00a7 3.5; Insurance \u00a7 147\u2014 aviation insurance \u2014 loss of plane \u2014 requirement that the pilot be \u201cproperly certified\u201d \u2014 lack of medical certification\nA pilot who at the time of his airplane crash did not have in force a current medical certificate as required by the Federal Aviation Agency was not a \u201cproperly certificated\u201d pilot within the meaning of an insurance policy providing coverage for the plane while it is being commanded by a properly certificated pilot; consequently, the pilot was properly denied recovery under the policy for the loss of the plane.\n3. Insurance \u00a7 3\u2014 policy as contract\nAn insurance policy is a contract.\n4. Insurance \u00a7 147\u2014 aviation insurance \u2014 loss of plane \u2014 insurer\u2019s burden of proof\nThe insurer of an airplane was not required to show any causal connection between the crash of the plane and the insured\u2019s breach of an exclusionary clause, where the language of the policy explicitly rendered such proof unnecessary.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bailey, /., 30 September 1970 Civil Session of Harnett Superior Court.\nPlaintiff seeks recovery under an aircraft insurance policy issued by defendant for loss incurred on 15 March 1969 when plaintiff\u2019s airplane crashed. The parties waived jury trial and submitted the case on agreed facts, which were in substance as follows:\nPlaintiff obtained his private pilot\u2019s license in the late 1950\u2019s, since which time it has remained in full force and effect. In October 1966 plaintiff renewed his medical certificate, third class, which by its terms became void after 24 calendar months. Plaintiff, owner of a Maul\u00e9 M4 aircraft, insured his airplane with defendant under a policy which expired on 18 October 1968. On 10 January 1969, while plaintiff\u2019s medical certificate was expired, defendant issued to plaintiff a new policy of insurance on the aircraft on plaintiff\u2019s written application dated 8 January 1969, and plaintiff paid defendant the required premium for the policy. On 15 March 1969 the aircraft was damaged when plaintiff was piloting the same and was attempting to land. On the date of the crash plaintiff was apparently in good health, and thereafter, on 18 April 1969, plaintiff renewed his medical certificate.\nThe insurance policy provided, in a \u201cPilot Endorsement,\u201d that coverage provided by the policy for the aircraft described therein \u201cshall not apply while such aircraft is in flight unless the pilot in command of the aircraft is properly certificated and rated for the flight and the aircraft.\u201d The parties stipulated that \u201c[t]he only question to be determined is whether the lapsing of plaintiff\u2019s medical certificate excluded coverage of the defendant\u2019s policy to the plaintiff.\u201d\nAfter hearing, the court entered judgment making findings of fact in conformity with the stipulation of the parties and concluding as a matter of law that at the time of the crash plaintiff was not properly certificated and rated for the flight in that he did not have a current medical certificate, that the exclusion in defendant\u2019s policy suspends application of the insurance while the aircraft was being piloted by someone who was not \u201cproperly certificated,\u201d and no coverage was afforded plaintiff by defendant\u2019s policy with respect to the crash of plaintiff\u2019s airplane on 15 March 1969.\nFrom judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action with prejudice, plaintiff appealed.\nBryan, Jones, Johnson, Hunter & Greene by James M. Johnson for \u2018plaintiff appellant.\nYoung, Moore & Henderson by J. C. Moore for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0605-01",
  "first_page_order": 629,
  "last_page_order": 633
}