This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

An appellate court in California has affirmed a trial court's decision that a claimant had the burden of demonstrating that the pilot of a Cessna aircraft that crashed had completed an annual training requirement as required by the pilot's insurance policy.

The Case

In September 2011, Walter Johnson was piloting a Cessna P210 model aircraft over Tehachapi in Kern County, California, when the plane crashed, killing Mr. Johnson and his passenger and igniting a fire that spread to Rocky Wright's real property. The fire destroyed personal properties, fixtures, and growing crops (timber) on Mr. Wright's real property.

Mr. Wright sued Mr. Johnson's estate, seeking to recover at least $1.75 million in damages to Mr. Wright's real and personal properties from Mr. Johnson's aircraft liability insurance carrier, Star Insurance Company.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Star on the ground that Mr. Wright could not prove an essential element of his insurance claim against Star, namely, that Mr. Johnson had complied with the pilot warranty endorsement (“PWE”) of his aircraft liability insurance policy with Star.

The PWE required any pilot of the Cessna, including Mr. Johnson, to have completed an “Annual MFG School Requirement.” Starr contended that the September 2011 flight was not covered unless its pilot, Mr. Johnson, had “successfully completed the aircraft manufacturer's approved ground and flight training school, or its equivalent as approved by the Aviation Managers, in the insured make and model aircraft within the preceding 12 months of the intended flight.”

The trial court concluded that because Mr. Wright at trial had the burden that the PWE was met by Mr. Johnson in order for the policy to provide coverage for Mr. Wright's damages, and because the facts and submitted evidence established that Mr. Wright had no evidence that Mr. Johnson met the PWE's Annual MFG School Requirement, and Mr. Wright could not obtain such evidence, then Mr. Wright could not establish an essential element of his claim that Star's policy covered his claims for damages.

Mr. Wright appealed, claiming that the trial court had erroneously placed the burden on him to show that Mr. Johnson had complied with the Annual MFG School Requirement, rather than placing the burden on Star to show that Mr. Johnson had not complied with the requirement.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that, as a general rule, an insured had the burden of proving that the occurrence forming the basis of its claim was within the basic scope of insurance coverage. Once an insured made this showing, the appellate court added, the burden was on the insurer to prove the claim was specifically excluded.

The Annual MFG School Requirement, the appellate court ruled, was a “coverage provision” or a condition precedent to covering Mr. Wright's claims under Star's aircraft liability insurance policy with Mr. Johnson.

Accordingly, the appellate court held, proving that Mr. Johnson had completed the PWE's Annual MFG School Requirement was “an essential element” of Mr. Wright's insurance claim against Star.

The appellate court reasoned that, at trial on his insurance claim against Star, Mr. Wright had the burden of proving that Mr. Johnson had completed the requirement. In moving for summary judgment, Star had the initial burden of showing that Mr. Wright could not prove that Mr. Johnson had completed the requirement. Star met this burden, the appellate court continued, and this shifted the burden to Mr. Wright to show that Mr. Johnson had met the requirement or to raise a triable issue whether Mr. Johnson had met the requirement.

Mr. Wright had not met this burden, the appellate court concluded, and summary judgment had properly been entered in favor of Star.

The case is Wright v. Estate of Johnson, No. E068412 (Cal. Ct. App. April 8, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Romaine Lokhandwala Law Group and William A. Romaine for Plaintiff and Appellant. Locke Lord, Kelly S. Biggins, Christopher R. Barth, and Hugh S. Balsam for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.