When plaintiff's husband was killed in a helicopter accident while being transported to work in the Gulf of Mexico, the insurer paid $40,000 under the "Other Accident" provision of the accident insurance policy instead of $150,000 under the "Common-Carrier Accidents" provision. See Smith v. American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus, No. 08-31032 (5th Cir. Sept. 28, 2009).
The policy defined "Common-Carrier Accidents" as those "involving a vehicle . . . to transport passengers for a fee. Common-carrier vehicles are limited to airplanes, trains, buses, trolleys and boats that operate on a regularly scheduled basis between predetermined points or cities. A taxi is not a common-carrier vehicle." "Other Accidents" were those "not classified as Common Carrier Accidents . . . ."
The helicopter was owned and operated by Rotorcraft Leasing Company, LLC. Rotocraft conducted the doomed flight under a contract that allowed the decedent's employer to request chartered helicopter transport for its workers to offshore platforms in the Gulf as needed. The insurer refused to classify the accident as a "Common-Carrier Accident" because the helicopter was not operated on a "regularly scheduled basis between predetermined points or cities."
Plaintiff sued. She prevailed on summary judgment after the district court found the definition of "Common-Carrier Accidents" ambiguous. Because a "taxi" was not a "common-carrier vehicle," the list of covered vehicles was non-exhaustive. Further, the policy excluded a taxi but failed to make any mention of a helicopter. The district court, however, never addressed the policy's requirement that a "common-carrier vehicle" operate on a regularly scheduled basis between predetermined points or cities.
The Fifth Circuit reversed. The policy's "regularly scheduled" requirement was not ambiguous and plaintiff failed to satisfy it. Nor was there any evidence that the helicopter flight had been regularly scheduled between predetermined points or cities. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the flight was operated under an "On-demand Air Taxi" certificate and described the flight as "non-scheduled."
