Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
February 02, 2024
A Incomplete Aircraft is Still an Aircraft

Injured by an Aircraft Fuselage Arose Out of Ownership of Aircraft

Barry Zalma
Feb 2, 2024

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g5HeEdqv and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gE96aGtf and at https://lnkd.in/gR6MtZ5H and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.

A woman was severely injured while moving an inoperable airplane. She now seeks to recover from her husband’s homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurance policy excludes injuries “arising out of” the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of an aircraft. The policy further defines “aircraft” as “any conveyance used or designed for flight.”

In Lisa Thompson v. United Services Automobile Association and Matthew Mrzena, No. S-18462, Supreme Court of Alaska (January 26, 2024) the Supreme Court resolved the dispute over interpretation of the policy wording.

FACTS

Claiming that the policy should cover her injury because in her view the aircraft became mere “parts” after her husband removed the wings, elevators, and tail rudder. The superior court disagreed, concluding that the fuselage was still an “airplane” and that, in any event, her injuries arose from her husband’s ownership of the aircraft. The court determined that her injuries were therefore not covered by the policy.

Around 2011 Matthew Mrzena purchased a 1946 Piper PA-12 airplane (Piper). Mrzena stopped using the Piper in 2014 when it failed an annual inspection and was deemed no longer airworthy. Mrzena removed the wings, tail rudder, and elevators from the fuselage, leaving the remainder of the fuselage and many other parts intact, including the wheeled landing gear, propeller, seats, windows, and engine. Mrzena kept the Piper in a plastic temporary garage at his home in Palmer, Alaska.

In 2019, Mrzena purchased a new residence where he planned to live with his now-wife Lisa Thompson. During the summer Thompson and Mrzena were in the process of moving their belongings, including the Piper, to the new home. As part of the move the Piper needed to be pushed out of the garage and onto a trailer. Mrzena was pushing from the back of the Piper, with Thompson at the front, when Thompson became pinned under the Piper’s nose. Thompson’s resulting injuries were severe.

At the time of the injury Mrzena had the Piper registered as an aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He also held an aircraft owner-specific liability policy on the Piper with Avemco Insurance Company (Avemco). Throughout his ownership of the Piper, Mrzena continued to renew both the Piper’s FAA registration and the Avemco aircraft policy.

DISCUSSION

Interpreting USAA’s aircraft exclusion pursuant to the reasonable expectations of the lay insured, the Supreme Court concluded that the policy’s exclusion of coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership or maintenance of an aircraft applies to exclude coverage for Thompson’s injuries. Regardless of whether the Piper was an airplane or a collection of airplane “parts” when it injured Thompson, the injury arose out of Mrzena’s ownership.

The Policy Excludes Coverage For Thompson’s Bodily Injuries Because They Arose Out Of Mrzena’s Ownership And Maintenance Of The Piper.

Generally, courts determine the liability of an insurer by the terms of the policy the insurer issued. Policy language is construed in accordance with ordinary and customary usage. A restriction on coverage is enforceable if an insurer, by plain language, limits the coverage of its policy.

The USAA policy broadly excludes coverage for bodily injury “arising out of” ownership and maintenance of an aircraft. This language supports the reasonable expectation that Thompson’s injuries would not be covered because Mrzena and Thompson’s movement of the fuselage, and her resulting injuries, “ar[ose] out of” Mrzena’s ownership and maintenance of the Piper.

Reasonable plane owners would not expect that their planes cease to be aircraft solely because the aircraft had been partially disassembled to perform maintenance.

Mrzena testified that he removed the wings, tail rudder, and elevator to repair damage to the plane’s exterior fabric, and to begin the process of re-covering the components. The Supreme Court noted that clear and unambiguous policy language excluding injuries arising out of ownership or maintenance of an aircraft forecloses Thompson’s argument that her injuries were covered by the policy.

The Supreme Court concluded that a reasonable person interpreting the USAA policy language’s broad exclusions for ownership, maintenance, and use would understand that the aircraft exclusion was intended to create “broad exclusions” for incidents involving a homeowner’s airplane.

Thompson asserted that the Piper was not an “actual aircraft” and became mere “aircraft parts” at some point before her injury. The Supreme Court concluded that it need not determine whether the Piper was an aircraft or mere “parts” at the time of Thompson’s injuries because it concluded that Thompson’s injuries “arose out of” Mrzena’s ownership of the Piper.

ZALMA OPINION

Common sense exists in the Alaska Supreme Court. An aircraft under repair is still an aircraft even if it cannot fly. The Plaintiff was injured while she an her husband were moving the aircraft to a new home where the intended repairs could continue. Therefore, the Plaintiff and her husband were involved in the ownership, maintenance use of an aircraft and the exclusion applied.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808

Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01

Go to X @bzalma; Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g

Go to X @bzalma; Go to videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH;

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.

00:08:46
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
August 27, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
August 26, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407

Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

After ...

00:12:33
September 11, 2026
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...

post photo preview
September 11, 2026

Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.

After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.

LAW

Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...

September 10, 2026
Failure to Plead a Facially Plausible Claim Requires Dismissal

Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith

Post 5487

Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.

Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals