In June 2017, an elderly wheelchair-bound amputee travelling through the Portland International Airport (PDX) tumbled to her death down 21 escalator steps after employees of airline contractor Huntleigh USA failed to provide adequate gate-to-gate transportation assistance for an Alaska Airlines flight to Spokane, WA. Huntleigh contractors responsible for providing wheelchair escort services for Alaska Airline passengers at PDX allegedly failed to monitor the woman, who became disoriented and independently navigated her electric-wheelchair onto a down-escalator, which she mistook for an elevator ramp, resulting in a fatal fall.
The estate of the decedent filed a survival and wrongful death action in the King County (WA) Superior Court, naming both Huntleigh and Alaska Airlines as defendants. Alaska Airlines tendered the lawsuit to Huntleigh and its insurer, Endurance American Insurance Co. Huntleigh initially argued that the circumstances underlying the suit did not arise out of performance or nonperformance of Huntleigh under the wheelchair escort service contract it had with Alaska. An arbitrator disagreed, and determined Huntleigh breached its duty to defend the airline.
Thereafter, Alaska Airlines again tendered the lawsuit to Endurance, but Endurance also refused to accept the tender. Consequently, Alaska Airlines sued Endurance in the Western District of Washington alleging breach of contract and bad faith and argued in a partial summary judgment motion that Endurance breached its duty to defend. Endurance argued that: (1) the issue regarding its obligation to defend Alaska Airlines was moot, as an arbitrator had already ruled that Huntleigh breached its duty to defend the airline; and (2) Endurance owed a duty to indemnify only to Huntleigh for its liability to Alaska Airlines.
The District Court determined that Endurance's arguments lacked merit because, under Washington law, the duty to defend arises if the insurance policy conceivably covers the allegations within the four corners of the complaint. The Court determined that the plain language of the Endurance Policy clearly provided coverage for bodily injury resulting from aviation operations and included Alaska Airlines as an additional insured with respect to operations Huntleigh performed on behalf of the airline. Thus, Huntleigh's breach of its duty to defend was of no consequence vis-à-vis Endurance's duty to defend.
The Court's decision turned primarily on a plain reading of
the Endurance insurance policy, which expressly provided that
Endurance owed a separate duty to defend Alaska Airlines and that
the allegations underlying the fatal fall triggered that
duty. Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Endurance stresses the
importance of carefully parsing and properly interpreting insurance
contracts, particularly when third-party contractors maintain
coverage contemporaneous with the
beneficiary of their services. Alaska Airlines
Inc. v. Endurance American Insurance Co. et al., 2021 WL
4033297 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 3, 2021)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
