A commercial general liability policy dispute between a popular Ohio amusement park and an insurer for a now-defunct roller coaster design company has ended in favor of the insurer.

The $21 million dispute involved Paramount Kings Island (PKI) and Admiral Insurance. In the case, which began in Nov. 2000, PKI alleged that the Roller Coaster Company of Ohio (RCCO) was liable for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of contract/professional malpractice, breach of implied warranty, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and negligence in the design of a ride referred to as the Son of Beast.

The Son of Beast is a wooden roller coaster that is capable of reaching speeds of 78 mph and was well known as one of the few wooden roller coasters that contained a loop when it opened. The loop has since been removed from the ride.

RCCO notified its CGL insurer Admiral Insurance of the lawsuit, but the insurer denied its duty to defend. A federal court case proceeded, and the court sided with PKI in 2002 and awarded the amusement park almost $21 million in damages in 2005, according to court documents.

However, RCCO's request to Admiral to pay the damages were again denied, leading PKI to file a complaint for declaratory judgment in the trial court against Admiral. That complaint was denied this week and Admiral was deemed not liable for the judgment due to faulty workmanship not being covered under Admiral's CGL policy.

In its ruling, the court justified its ruling by saying that CGL policies "are intended to insure the risks of an insured causing damages to other persons and their property, but that the policies are not intended to insure the risks of an insured causing damage to the insured's own work. Stated differently, a CGL policy will not provide coverage if faulty workmanship is the accident, but will provide coverage if faulty workmanship causes the accident."

Phone calls to Admiral's defense team for comment were not immediately returned.

To read the details of the 12-page ruling, click here.

Interested in more legal news and in-depth articles? Head over to Claims' legal channel for more information.

Special Reports /

Not So Amusing: Park Loses $21 Million in Ruling

Related Stories

Recommended For You