An aircraft owner and pilot sued by his passengers for injuries in a crash was denied coverage under the insurance issued to avionics manufacturer Garmin International. The owner's argument for coverage was based on an agreement by Garmin to sell at a discount a new product, a G900X, if the owner would allow Garmin access to the airplane to obtain installation data for a user manual. The G900X had been installed prior to the crash.
The aircraft owner argued that Garmin's insurance policy extended to joint ventures in which Garmin was involved, and that his arrangement to allow Garmin access to the airplane to access data in return for a discount constituted such a joint venture. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the owner, however, holding that a joint venture involving Garmin would be an insured under the policy only if Garmin had an ownership interest in the entity, had been obliged to provide insurance, or had exerted financial or managerial control over the joint venture. Concluding that the evidence properly submitted did not support any of these conclusions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the finding of no coverage. In reaching its decision, the Tenth Circuit also held that the district court had not abused its discretion in refusing to consider hundreds of pages of evidence that failed to conform to a local rule requiring a particular form for presentation of evidence in opposing summary judgment. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Garmin Int'l, Inc., 781 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2015).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
