DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 622
Judges: Hannum, Hoffman, Jacobs, Montgomery, Spaulding, Watkins, Wright
Filed Date: 9/12/1968
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Concurring Opinion by
The sole question upon which this dispute turns is whether an injury to a passenger on a boat licensed
The question arises because of the ambiguity of the language “water conveyance operated under a license for the transportation of passengers for hire” in Section A. The policy, which insures travel by land, sea, and air, contains no requirement that the licensed conveyance be in actual use for transportation of passengers for hire in order for the insured to qualify for the extensive benefits under Sections A and B of the policy.
Appellant’s husband, who holds a Coast Guard charter authorizing him to transport passengers for hire, is the owner and operator of the boat. Quite literally, at the time of the injury the boat was operated under a license for the transportation of passengers for hire. Such a license may be obtained only by an individual who had demonstrated his expertise in navigation and water safety by passing a series of examinations required by the Coast Guard in order to obtain a commercial license. The coverage afforded for injuries occurring on such a licensed watercraft is substantially greater than that for injuries occurring on other watercraft. The insurer, in affording this broader coverage, differentiated between the risks involved in the operation of licensed watercraft and the
Coverage for travel by air is provided in Section B, -which carries the same benefits and hospital indemnity as Section A. Benefits under Section C are 5% of those provided in Sections A and B and no hospital indemnity is offered.