Corradi v. Old United Casualty Company et al, No. 1:2015cv00488 - Document 68 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF
Corradi v. Old United Casualty Company et al Doc. 68 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 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.