Insurance companies are fighting policyholders rather than plaintiffs in the recreational industry field.

Insurance companies are attempting to avoid liability in OR cases by denying coverage. I’ve seen 4 in the past year in outdoor recreation.

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Meech (D. Minn. 2023)

State: Minnesota, United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Plaintiff: Scottsdale Insurance Company

Defendant: Troy Meech; Peggy Meech; and Scott Sellers

Plaintiff Claims: Whether there is coverage for an underlying claim under the policy

Defendant Defenses: There is coverage

Holding: For the Plaintiff Insurance Company

Year: 2023

Summary

Insurance company asked court for judgement saying there was no coverage under the policy for the claim. The coverage was denied because the exclusions in the policy were clear. The ranch owner is going to pay the claim out of their own pocket.

Facts

Scott Sellers is the plaintiff in the state court lawsuit against the defendant Meeches, Troy & Peggy. In this case, the plaintiff, the party starting the lawsuit is Scottsdale Insurance, the insurance company that issued a policy to the Meeches. The defendants are all three of the parties in the state court case, Meeches & Seller, the defendants and the plaintiff.

The defendants owned a ranch and purchased an insurance policy from Scottsdale. There is a state court case filed by Sellers for his injuries in the softball game. During the lawsuit in state court, the insurance company filed this action in federal court asking a court to determine if the insurance company had to defend and pay any claim based on the lawsuit in the state court.

The Meeches own and operate a ranch at which they host an annual event called the “Nimrod Bull Bash.” One of the activities during the event is a game of “Cowboy Softball,” during which participants play softball while bulls are present on the field. Defendant Scott Sellers is pursuing a state-court action against the Meeches for personal injuries that he suffered during a Cowboy Softball game in September 2021.

The insurance policy that Scottsdale issued to the Meeches contains two exclusions relevant to this case: an exclusion for “Athletic or Sports Participants” and a “Special Event Participant Exclusion.” The Meeches do not dispute that these exclusions preclude coverage for any injuries suffered by a participant in the Cowboy Softball game. The Meeches likewise do not dispute that Sellers in fact participated in the game. Instead, the Meeches contend that Sellers cannot be considered a participant because he was not authorized to play. The Meeches require all participants to register in advance and sign a waiver. Sellers did neither; instead, according to the Meeches, he entered the field without consent from the Meeches or any agent of the Meeches.

Once this case was filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota, the insurance company filed a motion for summary judgement. The court then had to interpret the contract, the insurance policy and found there was no coverage.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

This is a simple decision with one paragraph explaining there is no coverage.

There were two exclusions in the policy that the court found denied coverage. The Athletic or Sports Participants exclusion and the Special Event Participant exclusion.

The Athletic or Sports Participants exclusion stated there was no coverage for injuries sustained on the property for any person practicing or participating in sports, athletic contest, or exhibition. The name Cowboy Softball ended any argument about whether or not it was a sports event.

The athletic contest exclusion was again covered by the name and the activity. Playing softball. Coverage would have been excluded whether or not there were bulls on the field.

Unfortunately for the Meeches, however, coverage is precluded regardless of whether Sellers’s participation in the softball game was authorized. The language of the “Athletic or Sports Participants” exclusion precludes coverage for “‘bodily injury’ to any person arising out of practicing for or participating in any sports or athletic contest or exhibition that you sponsor.” Similarly, the “Special Event Participant Exclusion” precludes coverage for “‘bodily injury . . . arising out of . . . [t]he practicing for or participation in any athletic event, contest, [or] game . . . covered by this policy.” The former exclusion does not define “participant”; the latter includes a broad definition of “participant,” which includes performers, volunteers, and “any other person taking part” in the activities covered by the exclusion. The language of these exclusions plainly covers any person who actually participated in the Cowboy Softball game regardless of whether the person was authorized to do so; there is no language that distinguishes between authorized and unauthorized participants.

So Now What?

Read your policy.

Confirm what you believe is covered under your policy with the insurance agent or broker that sold you the policy.

If you have a doubt about coverage, whether something is covered, IN ADVANCE confirm coverage with an email or letter. A PHONE CALL is worthless now days, unless you are legally allowed to record the phone call. (Even if your state allows you to record phone calls, if the call is to someone out of your state, which does not allow you to record phone calls, your recorded call is worthless.) Get it in writing

Understand your Exclusions in your policies. Exclusions are specific events, fact patterns or risks your policy will not provide defense or coverage for.

Understand your Prerequisites or condition’s precedent in your policy. Condition’s precedent are specific requirements you must meet before any coverage is available. In OR cases a condition precedent found in many policies is the requirement you have a release signed. No release, no coverage.

Whether you are right or wrong, insurance pays to prove you are right or pay if you are wrong. Make sure you have a good policy that covers what you do.

For more articles like this see:

This is a confusing case concerning whether or not a person is an independent contractor or employee, has the right to sue the employer and whether the insurance company for the employer must provide coverage because of the confusion

What happens if you fail to follow the requirements of your insurance policy and do not get a release signed? In New Hampshire, you have no coverage.

Have you ever read your insurance policy? You should! The one at issue in this case specifically excluded the risks the policy was bought to cover.

To Review Case Law concerning this issue see:

Atain Specialty Ins Co v Adventure Facility Concepts Mgmt ND Ill 2023

MidContinent Excess Surplus Ins Co v Experiential Sys ND Ohio 2022

Johnson v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 2018 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 447

I’m currently involved in two cases that I cannot write about yet.

Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us

Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.

To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.

Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law    Rec-law@recreation-law.com    James H. Moss

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Meech (D. Minn. 2023)

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Meech (D. Minn. 2023)

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
TROY MEECH; PEGGY MEECH; and SCOTT SELLERS, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-0454 (PJS/LIB)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 25, 2023

Alexander V. Tibor and Kurt M. Zitzer, MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P., for plaintiff.

Troy Meech and Peggy Meech, defendants pro se.

ORDER

PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, CHIEF JUDGE

Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) brought this action seeking a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds, Troy and Peggy Meech, in a pending state-court personal-injury action. This matter is before the Court on Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 24, 2023, hearing, and briefly outlined below, Scottsdale’s motion is granted.^[1]

The Meeches own and operate a ranch at which they host an annual event called the “Nimrod Bull Bash.” ECF No. 43 at 2. One of the activities during the event is a game of “Cowboy Softball,” id., during which participants play softball while bulls are present on the field. Defendant Scott Sellers is pursuing a state-court action against the Meeches for personal injuries that he suffered during a Cowboy Softball game in September 2021. See ECF No. 1-1 (state-court complaint).

The insurance policy that Scottsdale issued to the Meeches contains two exclusions relevant to this case: an exclusion for “Athletic or Sports Participants” and a “Special Event Participant Exclusion.” ECF No. 1-2 at 39, 69. The Meeches do not dispute that these exclusions preclude coverage for any injuries suffered by a participant in the Cowboy Softball game. The Meeches likewise do not dispute that Sellers in fact participated in the game. Instead, the Meeches contend that Sellers cannot be considered a participant because he was not authorized to play. The Meeches require all participants to register in advance and sign a waiver. ECF No. 43 at 1. Sellers did neither; instead, according to the Meeches, he entered the field without consent from the Meeches or any agent of the Meeches.

Unfortunately for the Meeches, however, coverage is precluded regardless of whether Sellers’s participation in the softball game was authorized. The language of the “Athletic or Sports Participants” exclusion precludes coverage for “‘bodily injury’ to any person arising out of practicing for or participating in any sports or athletic contest or exhibition that you sponsor.” ECF No. 1-2 at 39. Similarly, the “Special Event Participant Exclusion” precludes coverage for “‘bodily injury . . . arising out of . . . [t]he practicing for or participation in any athletic event, contest, [or] game . . . covered by this policy.” ECF No. 1-2 at 69. The former exclusion does not define “participant”; the latter includes a broad definition of “participant,” which includes performers, volunteers, and “any other person taking part” in the activities covered by the exclusion. ECF No. 1-2 at 69. The language of these exclusions plainly covers any person who actually participated in the Cowboy Softball game regardless of whether the person was authorized to do so; there is no language that distinguishes between authorized and unauthorized participants. Accordingly, the Court grants Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment.

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 38] is GRANTED.

2. The Court DECLARES that, under Policy Number CPS7431908, effective from August 27, 2021 to August 27, 2022, plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company owes no duty to defend or indemnify defendants Scott Meech and Peggy Meech with respect to claims asserted against them by defendant Scott Sellers in Wadena County Case No. 80-CV-22-905.

4

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

———

Notes:

^[1]Defendant Scott Sellers did not respond to Scottsdale’s motion and did not appear at the hearing.

———