Summary
This document concerns AIG Aviation (Texas), Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company's petition in the Supreme Court of Texas involving aviation insurance coverage and policy provisions concerning pilot qualifications. The text consists of Justice Willett's dissent from the denial of rehearing, arguing that aviation insurance contracts should be enforced according to their express terms and that the causal-connection rule from Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. should be overruled or distinguished.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Texas Supreme Court should reconsider Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co.'s causal-connection requirement for enforcing aviation-insurance policy provisions.
- Whether aviation-insurance contracts should be enforced according to their express terms, without requiring the insurer to prove that the insured's breach caused the accident or damage.
- Whether the petition for rehearing should be granted.
Key quotations
“In short, Puckett granted an unbargained-for expansion of coverage in the face of a bargained-for exclusion from coverage.” (170)
“As we have stressed, Texas courts must stick to what policies say, not what we wish they said.” (170)
“The Court should join the mainstream, not grant aviation contracts their own interpretive jet stream.” (171)
Factual background
The underlying insurance dispute involved an aviation insurance policy containing an exclusion requiring a minimum level of pilot experience. Justice Willett contrasted that exclusion with the airworthiness-certificate provision addressed in Puckett and characterized the pilot-experience requirement as part of the basis of the bargain. The opinion does not provide additional factual details because it addresses only the denial of rehearing.
Procedural history
The underlying dispute concerned aviation-insurance coverage and a policy exclusion requiring a minimum level of pilot experience. The Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing on April 9, 2008. Justice Willett dissented from that denial and argued that the court should address, overrule, or distinguish Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co.