fbpx
skip to Main Content

INSURANCE COVERAGE:  District Court found no duty to defend and indemnify where allegations of Complaint fell squarely into insurance policy exclusion barring coverage

The District Court granted the defendant insurance company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding no duty to defend or indemnify under the insurance policy exclusions.  Ryan Maciog brought a cause of action for injuries sustained at a concert when the band performing threw fake blood onto the dance floor causing another party to slip and fall on defendant’s leg.  The plaintiff concert venue brought a cause of action against its insurance provider for violation of contractual obligations in failing to defend and indemnify the venue in the suit brought by Ryan Maciog.  The insurer filed the subject Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that under an exclusion of the insurance policy there is no coverage for any loss arising directly or indirectly from “throwing, launching, or propelling, by any and all means, of any object or person.”  The plaintiff venue argued that there was ambiguity in the contract language as to the definition of “object” and “arising out of”.  The court disagreed, holding that the court “will not torture words to import ambiguity where the ordinary meaning leaves no room for ambiguity” because the injury arose out of the propelling of an object, the fake blood, from stage, the exclusion provision unambiguously barred coverage.  SKM Restaurants, Inc. v. James River Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5803225 (January 30, 2020)