SFI, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
The court affirmed a summary judgment for the insured, holding that the renter pilot exclusion in an aviation liability policy did not apply to a pilot providing a checkout flight who did not rent the aircraft or provide remuneration to the named insured.
The court held that the renter pilot exclusion, which applied to persons operating the aircraft under a rental agreement providing remuneration to the named insured, did not preclude coverage for Pruess, as he was not operating the aircraft under such an agreement.
Appellee Pruess was piloting an aircraft rented by Adams from Bellaero, Inc., to provide Adams with a required checkout flight for his private pilot l…
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.
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:
In 1976 SFI, Inc. filed suit in district court alleging that its insurer, United States Fire Insurance Co., had failed to comply with the coverage terms of a policy it had issued to SFI. The insurance company answered the allegations and offered the defense that SFI had, by failing to act with due diligence in maintaining a burglar alarm system, breached a protective safeguards endorsement contained in the policy. The district court found that SFI had acted with due diligence, and held for the plaintiff. This appeal followed.
We find no error in the district court’s determination of the applicable law, nor in its application of the law to the facts of the case. Moreover, we may not overturn the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Liverett, 475 F. 2d 188 (5th Cir. 1973); Sumrall v. Resolute Insurance Co., 377 F. 2d 671 (5th Cir. 1967). See also Western Cottonoil Co. v. Hodges, 218 F. 2d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1954). Because the district court’s findings are by no means clearly erroneous, we affirm the district court’s decision and adopt in full its opinion, reported at SFI, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 453 F.Supp. 502 (M.D.La. 1978).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- W. Cottonoil Co. v. Hodges, 218 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Otto Sumrall and Delores (Spears) Sumrall v. Resolute Ins. Co., 377 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1967)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Liverett, 475 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1973)