Archive for the ‘Liability Insurance’ Category

Coverage Denied for Injury to Motorsports “Participant”

January 19, 2011

T.H.E. Insurance v. Cochran Motor Speedway (Georgia)
(Minor in the pit area of a racetrack deemed to be a participant; insurance coverage denied due to a participant exclusion.)

A stepfather and his minor daughter attended a racing event at the defendant’s racing facility.  The stepfather purchased pit passes for himself and the minor, and he signed a waiver and release from liability and indemnity agreement on their behalf.  The stepfather had some sort of affiliation with one of the racing team’s that happened to be crowned the winner of the local points championship on the evening in question.  The team decided to celebrate the championship by driving the racecar back onto the racetrack to the front straightaway.  The minor daughter was placed on top of the car and it began to drive onto the racetrack.  While it was moving, she fell from the car and was injured.  The minor daughter then filed a lawsuit against the racetrack, its owner, and the driver of the race car to recover for her personal injuries.  The racetrack submitted the claim to its insurance company, which denied coverage and filed a claim for declaratory relief.  Eventually, the plaintiff insurer filed a motion for summary judgment based upon exclusions in the policy, and the Court granted the motion. (more…)

Insurance Company “Cutz” Barbershop’s Defense

July 6, 2008

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Cutz, LLC (Florida)
(Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Lessor of Premises in Negligent Security Lawsuit.)

In September 2003, two men were shot to death at a Cutz, LLC (Cutz) barbershop. Personal representatives of the deceased men brought suit against Cutz (the lessee) and G&G Laboratories (the lessor of the premises), seeking damages for wrongful death and negligence based upon a failure to provide security at the barbershop. Cutz was the named insured under an insurance policy issued by Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Both Cutz and G&G Laboratories (G&G) tendered their defense and requested indemnity from Scottsdale. Scottsdale sought a declaration from the Court that it was not responsible for G&G.

(more…)

A Bounce in Their Step

July 9, 2007

National Mutual Insurance v. Curtis (Indiana)
(Trampoline Accident Victim Sued Homeowners’ Insurer for Declaratory Relief; Insurer Cited Trampoline Exclusion, But court Found Exclusion to Be Ambiguous; Insurer Owed Duty)

The plaintiff was seriously injured while attending a graduation party at the home of the Curtises. During the party, he was injured while using a trampoline. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Curtises for his injuries, and he later amended the complaint to add National Mutual Insurance Company as a defendant, seeking a declaration that the Curtises’ policy provided liability coverage for his injuries. National Mutual declined coverage, citing a trampoline exclusion found in a supplement attached to the main policy. The lower court granted the plaintiff’s summary judgment, determining that the policy provided coverage, and National Mutual appealed.

(more…)

Gimme a W-A-I-V-E-R . . . What’s that Spell?!

July 2, 2007

Jestes v. Cleveland County Board of Education (North Carolina)
(High School Cheerleader Injured During Practice and Sued School Board; School Board was Partially Immune Pursuant to Government Immunity Statutes, But Waived Immunity in Part By Procuring Excess Liability Insurance)

A cheerleader, who was injured while participating in a cheerleading practice, brought a lawsuit against the school board and its cheerleading coach. The school board filed a motion for summary judgment, citing government immunity barring actions against the state, its counties, and its public officials sued in their official capacity. The trial court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, finding that the board was immune up to a certain dollar value, but that the board had waived its immunity above that value by procuring excess liability insurance coverage. The board appealed the ruling.

(more…)