Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 18, 1967; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, presided over litigation concerning airplane insurance involving J. M. Matthews, who owned a 1959 Piper Apache and purchased a policy from National Insurance Underwriters on April 1, 1966. The policy promised $15,000 (minus a $1,000 deductible) for total destruction of the aircraft due to ground contact, subject to specific exclusions. On April 28, 1966, Matthews crashed the plane near Winchester, Arkansas, resulting in his death and total loss of the aircraft. His widow, Annie Mae Matthews, executed a claim for the loss, but National declined payment, offering a refund of $840.09 in premiums instead.
Legal action ensued to recover the loss, with National asserting that the claim was excluded under the policy due to Matthews operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions without a valid instrument rating, as he was only certified for Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Evidence indicated that the crash occurred outside controlled airspace, and the parties agreed on the definitions of IFR and VFR.
National's defense hinged on proving that the loss was caused by the pilot's operating conditions at the time of the crash. Five witnesses provided testimony regarding the plane's operation prior to the crash, noting issues such as engine malfunctions and abnormal sounds. The jury ultimately found in favor of the Matthews estate, awarding $13,159.91, prompting National to appeal on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
Morris Newton described hearing unusual engine noises from a plane outside his home, noting that the engines sounded like they were stalling rather than running normally. Virgil Abston observed the plane changing direction and noticed a change in engine tone, but did not investigate until after the plane had passed. He reported that the engines appeared to idle before producing a popping sound, and he saw the plane in a near-vertical position before the crash. All witnesses confirmed that weather conditions at the time of the crash were clear, with no storm, wind, rain, or fog, and some farms had lights on. Witnesses stated that they could not consistently see the plane, especially since it was dusk, but none claimed to have seen it emerge from clouds. Expert witness Arthur L. Mayer, a seasoned pilot, explained Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), clarifying that the relevant regulations depend on cloud height and visibility, not merely darkness or other weather factors. Mayer reviewed weather reports from nearby cities and concluded that the conditions did not warrant IFR, as he could have flown under those circumstances without violating regulations. On the night of the crash, he noted clear skies with visible moon and stars and only a few scattered clouds.
The jury was tasked with evaluating the facts of the case, and the focus is on whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. According to Glens Falls Insurance Company v. Browning, the testimony must be interpreted favorably for the appellee. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the plane was operated in violation of the insurance policy's exclusion provision, as there was no evidence regarding the plane's altitude and no witnesses confirmed it was flying in clouds. Instead, evidence suggests the crash was likely due to engine trouble. The appellee has requested an additional attorney’s fee of $1,000, which is granted. The court affirms the decision, noting that certain lights would have helped the pilot determine his location, further indicating that the plane was "in trouble" rather than lost. A witness clarified that a statute mile equals 5,280 feet, emphasizing that the pilot needed visibility of one mile.
