2020 Georgia Code
Title 33 - Insurance
Chapter 24 - Insurance Generally
Article 1 - General Provisions
§ 33-24-30. Excluding or Denying Coverage on Basis of Violation of Civil Air Regulations

1. No policy of insurance issued or delivered in this state covering any loss, expense, or liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an aircraft shall exclude or deny coverage because the aircraft is operated in violation of civil air regulations pursuant to federal, state, or local laws or ordinances.
2. This Code section does not prohibit the use of specific exclusions or conditions in any such policy which relates to any of the following:
   1. Certification of an aircraft in a stated category by the Federal Aviation Administration;
   2. Certification of a pilot in a stated category by the Federal Aviation Administration;
   3. Establishing requirements for pilot experience; or
   4. Establishing limitations on the use of the aircraft.
3. Any policy of insurance containing one, all, or any combination of the specific exclusions or conditions in the categories permitted in subsection (b) of this Code section shall include conspicuous notice advising the insured that the policy contains such exclusions or conditions and provide specific instructions as to what actions the insured shall undertake in order to protect and preserve his or her rights and coverages under the policy.

(Code 1933, § 56-2439, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1414, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 824, § 1/HB 84.)

- Ga. L. 2015, p. 824, § 2/HB 84, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall be applicable to policies issued on or renewed after July 1, 2015."

- For annual survey on commercial transportation, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 41 (2017).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Policy's terms prevail over FAA regulations.

- Provision in an insurance policy requiring that only pilots with "proper [Federal Aviation Agency pilot] certificates" may operate the aircraft, does not require exact compliance with the face of the pilot's certificate, since the policy's terms specifying the limits of the coverage, and not the Federal Aviation Agency's regulations, prevail. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Culberson, 454 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 916, 92 S. Ct. 2440, 32 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1972).

Endorsement of passenger coverage provision in an insurance policy prevails over a provision suspending coverage for operation of a plane "in any manner which requires a special permit or waiver from the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA)" when the plane was operated in violation of FAA regulation since the policy clearly was endorsed so as to cover just such operation. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Culberson, 454 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 916, 92 S. Ct. 2440, 32 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1972).

- Limitation of liability based upon absence of a valid medical certificate relates to pilot "status" and does not constitute a condition subsequent tending illegally to vitiate coverage. Boone v. Ranger Ins. Co., 152 Ga. App. 891, 264 S.E.2d 325 (1980).

Policy exclusion for losses arising out of the operation of a helicopter for which the airworthiness certificate has expired does not violate subsection (a) O.C.G.A. § 33-24-30, even though the effectiveness of that certificate is governed by compliance with federal regulations, since the basis for exclusion of coverage is the operation of the helicopter without the airworthiness certificate, not the violation of the underlying regulations. Coren v. Puritan Ins. Co., 184 Ga. App. 667, 362 S.E.2d 380, cert. denied, 184 Ga. App. 903, 363 S.E.2d 159 (1987).

- When a policy states that "the coverage afforded by this policy shall not apply . . ." unless the aircraft operator holds a "valid and effective pilot and medical certificate," this language would unambiguously indicate to the insured that insurance coverage would be suspended if the plane was operated by a pilot without an effective pilot certificate and medical examination. Thus, the language was fairly interpreted as an exclusion. Monarch Ins. Co. v. Polytech Indus., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 1058 (M.D. Ga.), aff'd, 833 F.2d 1020 (11th Cir. 1987).

- Exclusion of liability was valid under subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-30 where it applied to instances when the pilot was not licensed and qualified under federal laws and regulations. Brown v. North Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 235 Ga. App. 299, 508 S.E.2d 741 (1998).

- Pilot endorsement which says that, in addition to named persons, a pilot approved under the policy would be . . . "any commercial pilot with a minimum of 300 total logged flying hours, of which not less than 10 hours shall have been in the same make and model aircraft as the insured," was a valid and binding requirement for the insured and barred coverage of a commercial pilot who had not logged 10 flying hours as first in command of the type of aircraft involved, since the pilot was operating the controls at the time of the crash, even if another person was first in command at the time of the crash. Monarch Ins. Co. v. Polytech Indus., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 1058 (M.D. Ga.), aff'd, 833 F.2d 1019 (11th Cir. 1987).

Cited in F & M Bank v. Ranger Ins. Co., 125 Ga. App. 166, 186 S.E.2d 579 (1971); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hilde, 172 Ga. App. 161, 322 S.E.2d 285 (1984).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Construction and application of provision of life or accident policy relating to aeronautics, 17 A.L.R.2d 1041.

Property insurance on aircraft; risks and losses covered, 48 A.L.R.3d 1120.

Construction of provision of aviation liability policy which requires pilot of insured aircraft to have appropriate license or certification, 72 A.L.R.3d 525.

Risks and causes of loss covered or excluded by aviation liability policy, 86 A.L.R.3d 118.

What is "aircraft" or the like within meaning of exclusion or exception clause of insurance policy, 39 A.L.R.4th 214.

Aviation insurance: causal link between breach of policy provisions and accident as requisite to avoid insurer's liability, 48 A.L.R.4th 778.