In National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 2007 WL 1599293 (Ind. App., 2007), the victim of a trampoline accident brought an action against the homeowner's insurer for a declaratory judgment that the insured's policy did not exclude liability coverage. The insurer filed a counterclaim and a cross-claim against the insured for declaratory judgment based on a trampoline exclusion. The Circuit Court entered summary judgment that the policy provided coverage.

The insurer appealed, disputing the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the insurance company contended that as it was the insured's duty to examine the contents of their insurance policy, which included the exclusionary clause in clear, easily understandable and unambiguous language, and stating it should be enforced against the insured. On the other hand, the insured, focusing on the placement of the exclusionary clause, asserted that its inclusion in the Supplemental Extensions section amounted to an ambiguity, which should result in the insurer providing coverage for the victim's injuries.