Is Aircraft Exclusion Applied to Model Airplane

Under the current version of the CGL form, would an insured have coverage for bodily injury caused by a remote control model airplane he was flying at the time of the occurrence? Aircraft is not defined on the policy and the dictionary definition is not very useful (a vehicle for traveling through the air). We cannot tell if the aircraft exclusion on the CGL form would apply to this incident. What is your opinion?

New Jersey Subscriber

It is true that the CGL form does not define aircraft but the intent of the exclusion is to prevent the CGL form from covering BI or PD caused by an aircraft designed to carry people or cargo. This type of risk exposure should be covered under a specialty type policy, one specifically underwritten and priced for the large losses that could occur due to a plane crash or accident. A model airplane is a toy and the risk exposure from that toy is minimal when compared to that of an actual aircraft.

It may very well be that a strict interpretation of the aircraft exclusion could cause an adjuster to deny a BI claim based on the model airplane hitting someone. But, such a course would be similar to using the pollution exclusion to deny a claim for property damage caused by milk or paint being spilled on a carpet. The exclusions on the CGL form are meant to prevent coverage for losses that would be better covered under a specialty type policy. A loss caused by a toy airplane should not be made the equivalent of a loss due to a regular airplane