Corradi v. Old United Casualty Company et al

Filing 68

Memorandum Opinion and Order that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 12/08/2015. (jlan) Modified on 12/8/2015 (jlan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

JOHN CORRADI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. l:15-cv-488-GBL-MSN

V.

OLD UNITED CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff John Corradi ("Plaintiff')'s and Defendant

Old United Casualty Company ("Defendant")'s Cross Motions for Summary Judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. 16 and Doc. 51). This case involves an insurance

claim dispute where Plaintiff authorized a non-insured pilot to fly Plaintiffs airplane, the

airplane was damaged, and Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages fi:om his insurer, Defendant.
There are two issues before the Court. The first issue is whether Plaintiff may seek

damages from Defendant, his insurer, under an insurance policy ("Policy") that only covers
damage incurred while the aircraft is operated by certain "Approved Pilots," when here, the pilot

operating Plaintiffs plane when it crashed was not an "Approved Pilot." The second issue is
whether the Virginia Omnibus Statute Section 38.2-2204, which only applies to third-party
claims for liability, modifies Plaintiffs Policy by expanding coverage to first-party claims for
damage, like the one Plaintiff brings here.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for two reasons. First, the Court finds that the plain
language of the Policy only covers the Aircraft's operation by "Approved Pilots," but during this