FORT MYERS AIRWAYS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fort Myers Airways appeals a summary judgment denying it coverage under an aircraft insurance policy issued to the deceased airplane owner. The court affirms, holding that while a flight instructor can be an insured as an agent/employee of the owner, Fort Myers Airways—a flight school with which the owner had a terminable business relationship—was not an agent or employee for insurance purposes due to insufficient control.
Fort Myers Airways was not an agent or employee of Shaw for purposes of the insurance coverage. Although a flight instructor giving instructions to the airplane owner can be an insured as an agent or employee, Fort Myers Airways did not meet this standard because Shaw lacked the same degree of immediate control and direction over the flight school that he exercised over his flight instructor.
[1] A flight instructor, giving instructions to the owner and insured of an airplane, may be considered an agent or employee of the owner under an insurance policy that provi…
[2] The degree of control exercised by an aircraft owner over a flight instructor is determinative of whether the instructor is an agent or employee for purposes of insurance…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a flight instructor, giving instructions to the owner and insured of an airplane, is the agent or employee of the owner under an insurance policy which provides coverage to an agent or employee of the insured.”
The court's prior holding establishing when a flight instructor qualifies as an insured under the aircraft owner's policy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerman Shaw owned a Cessna 411 aircraft covered by an American States Insurance policy. In January 1977, the aircraft crashed. Shaw had a contractual …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
These consolidated cases represent the second appeal arising from the January, 1977, crash of Herman Shaw’s Cessna 411 aircraft. In Fort Myers Airways, Inc. v. American States Insurance Co., 411 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), we held that Shaw’s flight instructor, Donald Varbonco-eur, was an insured under the policy written by American States for Shaw. We based our holding on the premise that “a flight instructor, giving instructions to the owner and insured of an airplane, is the agent or employee of the owner under an insurance policy which provides coverage to an agent or employee of the insured.” 411 So. 2d at 884-85. Now, contending that it is also an agent or employee of the deceased, Fort Myers Airways, Inc. claims it should be treated as an insured under the American States’ policy. Prior to our decision in Fort Myers Airways, the trial court found that Fort Myers Airways is not an insured under this policy and entered summary judgment in favor of American States. This appeal followed.
In Fort Myers Airways, we concluded that Varboncoeur was an insured under the policy because Shaw’s direct control over Varboncoeur while they were airborne was sufficient to make Varboncoeur an agent or employee of Shaw for purposes of the insurance contract. That is not the case here, because the type and degree of control is not the same. Shaw had a contractual, business relationship with Fort Myers Airways that he could terminate at any time. But, he did not have the same degree of immediate control and direction over Fort Myers Airways that he had over Donald Varboncoeur. Therefore, for purposes of the insurance coverage provided by American States to Shaw and his agents or employees, Fort Myers Airways was not Shaw’s agent and entry of summary judgment in favor of American States was proper. AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fort Myers Airways, Inc. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 411 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)