Noting a paucity of recent California Supreme Court precedent on whether strict or merely substantial compliance with an insurance warranty is required to invoke coverage, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that California law requires strict compliance with a pilot warranty in an aviation insurance policy as a condition precedent to coverage.  Trishan Air, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, __ F.3d __ 2011 WL 540532 (9th Cir. 2011).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Central District of California’s summary judgment dismissal of the insured’s breach of contract and bad faith claims.

Trishan Air, Inc. (Trishan) owned a fleet of corporate jets.  It purchased an aviation insurance policy from Federal Insurance Company (Federal). The policy included a pilot warranty endorsement that required a two-pilot crew for each aircraft and that

such pilot(s) must have successfully completed a ground and flight recurrent/initial training course for the make and model operated within the past 18 months. Any such course must incorporate the use of a motion-based simulator specifically designed for the insured make and model/make and model series.

In June 2007 Trishan’s 13-passenger Dassault Falcon 900 ran off the main runway at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport in an aborted high-speed takeoff.  The impact snapped the front landing gear, and the Falcon 900 skidded to rest in the dirt 600 feet away.  Thankfully, no fatalities.  At the time of the accident the co-pilot had never attended any formal training course or flight simulator course for the particular jet involved.

Trishan submitted a claim for the loss to Federal.  Federal denied coverage based on a breach of the pilot warranty.  Trishan filed suit for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, reformation and declaratory judgment.  Federal moved for summary judgment.  Trishan introduced fact and expert evidence that the co-pilot substantially complied with the pilot warranty, and that substantial compliance satisfied the warranty.  Causation was not an issue because Trishan and Federal stipulated that Federal was not required to demonstrate a causal connection between the accident and any breach of the pilot warranty.

The district court granted Federal’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that California law requires strict compliance with the pilot warranty.  Trishan appealed.

Citing turn-of-the-century California Supreme Court precedent, and more recent appellate precedent, the Ninth Circuit rejected Trishan’s arguments.  It concluded that the pilot warranty was in the nature of a condition precedent to coverage, requiring strict compliance, rather than a mere condition of coverage as to which substantial compliance might suffice.

Trishan’s argument is premised on the warranty being a mere condition of the insurance policy, thus requiring only substantial compliance. This argument ignores the dichotomy between conditions relating to basic coverage, such as notice provisions, and conditions, like the pilot warranty, that are ‘an element of the fundamental risk insured.’ [citation]. ‘There are well-established differences between insuring clauses, exclusions, and conditions that should not be amalgamated into one binary question: coverage yes or no under an ‘if … then’ analysis. [citation].

Contrary to such variations in insurance provisions, Trishan seeks universal application of the substantial compliance doctrine untethered from the type of warranty at issue. However, strict compliance with pilot warranties serves as a necessary corollary of aviation insurance policies. ‘Federal courts uniformly enforce [pilot warranties] … and for good reason. Pilot qualifications and experience are obviously factors bearing directly on the risk the insurer is underwriting.’ [citation].

The pilot warranty is like a condition precedent because it expressly establishes the events or conditions that must occur before coverage can take effect.  The Ninth Circuit noted that the practical effect of adopting Trishan’s substantial compliance standard would be to substitute the underwriter’s clear underwriting parameters with the insured’s subjective assessment.  It would introduce too much uncertainty into ascertaining the risk that the underwriter agreed to assume, and would essentially re-write the insurance policy—which California courts are prohibited from doing.

The Ninth Circuit went further.  It noted that even if substantial compliance would suffice, the co-pilot’s lack of formal coursework and simulator training for the Falcon 900 did not even substantially comply with the pilot warranty.

Trishan elides the fact that it did not comply with the pilot warranty’s training requirements for co-pilots in any fashion. Instead, Trishan asserts that the pilot’s alternative training served as a substitute for the simulator training. However, a complete failure to comply is not analogous to minor deficiencies. [citation]. Thus, Trishan’s complete failure to comply with the pilot warranty precludes coverage even under the substantial compliance doctrine. [citation].

Finally, noting the long established rule in California that there is no bad faith where there is no coverage, the Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Trishan’s bad faith claim.  The Ninth Circuit added that since Federal’s denial of coverage based on Trishan’s failure to strictly comply with the pilot warranty was reasonable, the “genuine dispute” doctrine also insulated Federal from any bad faith liability.

The take-away for insureds:  review your insurance program carefully for warranty endorsements in your policies.  Strict compliance may be required.