*1 no fact Here, we can conceive of justi which constitutes a rational
situation a distinction between making
fication for employed who are
headstart workers and head- programs administered
county employed by school
start workers who Thus, stand. the statute cannot
districts. cause is are set aside and the
The orders the re- with directions to
remanded compensation unemployment
spondents’
claims. CISE, JJ., concur. VAN
COYTE O’Connor, and Dan
Jack O’CONNOR
Plaintiffs-Appellants, COMPA INSURANCE
PROPRIETORS Aviation,
NY and CTH Appeals, Court of Colorado Williams, Howard, Michael A. Sherman Reath, Denver, plaintiffs-ap- Ellen W. 30, 1982. Sept. pellants. 21, 1982. Denied
Rehearing Renner, Renner, P.C., D. Paul Paul D. Rodman, Denver, for defendants- John R. 28, 1983. March Granted Certiorari appellees. ENOCH, Judge. Chief recover to by plaintiffs action This airplane damages under The tri- defendants. issued in fa- summary al court entered appeal. defendants, vor of We affirm. stipulated. were following facts an aircraft operated owned
Plaintiffs *2 in a crash on cause the at damaged Septem- policy precludes coverage which was issue 8,1979. accident, ber At the time of the an when the aircraft has not had an annual required as to maintain policy inspection issued to de- its Air- Certificate, worthiness and it covering damage to the craft was because was fendants here, that such was the stipulated effect. case the policy in full force and The con- trial in entering summary court was correct excluding coverage tained a while provision in favor of defendants. flight the in “operated craft was viola- tion of the terms of its F.A.A. Airworthi- Judgment affirmed. Operational ness or Rec- Certificate ” ord In order to maintain the air- .... PIERCE, J., concurs. Certificate, craft’s Airworthiness an annual in- Regulations require Aviation COYTE, J., dissents. spection, performed by to be an Aircraft (AI), in- Inspector regular and a 100-hour COYTE, Judge, dissenting. spection, to an Airframe performed by be I dissent. (A P). Powerplant and mechanic The majority opinion uncritically applies The timely inspec- craft had received a 100-hour the rule of Schantini v. Hartford Accident 22, 1978, September tion on but had not Indemnity, Colo.App. 605 P.2d within the 12 inspection received an annual (1971), that a violation of the express accident. A preceding months the 100-hour exclusionary provisions terms of the of a inspection inspection and an annual are for insurance bars the recovery by contract identical, and the fact that the craft had though insured even there is no causal rela- P, had from an A & inspection a 100-hour tionship between the violation and the acci- but from an AI inspection not an annual I of opinion am still that Schanti- had causal to the accident. relationship wrongly appli- ni was decided and that the required The absence of the annual in- cation of the rule announced therein leads spection formed the basis of the trial court’s improper unjust results. entry summary judgment. of stipulated facts of this case graphi- a plaintiffs On concede that tech- appeal, illustrate the harsh results of the cally regulations nical of the for Air- violation plication of the rule Schantini. The sole worthiness certification existed because of coverage basis for denial of under the ex- plaintiffs’ give timely failure to the craft a provision clusion of the However, inspection. annual because this inspection Sep- was that the 100-hour on technical not bear a causal 22, 1978, violation did designated tember was not accident, relationship to the con- inspection performed annual and was not nevertheless recover. they by Inspector. stipulated tend that should an Aircraft It was “Although persons that: different are au- disagree. We of perform types inspections, thorized to v. Hartford Accident & Schantini inspections of the are scope and detail Co., 605 P.2d Indemnity Colo.App. in all exactly respects.” the same Further- (1979) there dispositive here. Where more, the trial court found that under is a express violation of an term of possible it is that a 100- insurance policy policy specifically may be substituted for an inspection hour of such a coverage excludes in the event performed if it is inspection annual violation, case, not as in this the insured is perform inspec- authorized to annual person recover, entitled to com inspection and the insurance as an annual tions and is entered incurs even pany liability, nothing stipu- no contractual in the record. There is in the though record to show that aircraft relationship there is no causal be lated factual perform tween the Be- who are authorized to inspectors violation and the accident.
H83 inspections any annual more skilled or Accordingly, I would reverse judg- education, ment of the trial court. qualified by way of training, or than are experience Aircraft and Power-
plant per- Mechanics who are authorized to inspections.
form 100-hour As the trial findings conclusion,
court stated in its
“There is nothing explains in evidence that
why precisely procedures identical done W.R. HALL CONSTRUCTION COMPA by an A & P are not satisfactory or of NY, corporation, a Colorado Here, if done an A.I.” less merit than Plaintiff-Appellant, compliance there was in substance but not with the regula- strict letter of the F.A.A.
tions. EQUIPMENT H.W. COMPANY, MOORE corporation, a Delaware Sun Coal Com points result out pany, Inc., corporation a Colorado importance requiring a causal connec- Massey Co., Inc., Virginia Corp., A.T. dealing tion when with an exclusion broadly applicable existing to all regulations. Schantini, As I stated in my dissent
supra, are so numerous Colorado Court of Appeals, and technical virtually that there is plane crash that does not occur without the 14, 1982.
violation of regulation. at least one Logic 12, Rehearing Denied Nov. 1982. and sound public policy dictate that insur- 18, April Certiorari Denied 1983. ance carriers not be allowed to cover- age by invoking an exclusion clause that is
triggered by a violation of such regulations
where there is no causal connection be-
tween claimed violation and the acci-
In my opinion the better reasoned
proach requires that provi- exclusion
sions of aviation insurance policies should
be interpreted in a manner similar to other
policy provisions that deny coverage when-
ever the insured’s death involves a violation
of law. In interpreting provisions, such majority rule is to the effect that
“[T]he
there must be a causative connection be-
tween the violation of law injury
received.” 1 Appleman, A.J. Insurance Practice,
Law and 511. Mutu- See Penn. § Gibson,
al Life Ins. Co. v. 160 Colo. 418 (1966).
P.2d 50 jurisdictions Courts other
take such an approach. Security Mutual Hollingsworth,
Life Ins. Co. v. 592 P.2d
(Okl.1969); Carolina Ins. Co. v. Col- South
lins, (1977). S.C. S.E.2d Appleman,
See also 1 A.J. supra, §
(1979 supp.).