Affirming the decision of the lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insurer has no duty to pay for losses ensuing from an incident involving a festival attendee and a flying beach ball. The case is Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hub City Enters., No. 19-14193, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9744 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020)
Robert Hunt, an attendee of Rum Fest 2017 in Orlando Florida, alleged that he suffered severe injuries when he used his outstretched hands to push an extra-large beach ball away from him in order to prevent it from hitting him in the head. Hunt filed suit against Hub City and Wall Street (Hub City), the owners and operators of a series of bars, restaurants, and night clubs in Orlando, which is where the Rum Festival was held. The insurer, Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Co., (Princeton Excess) agreed to defend the businesses, subject to a reservation of rights. Princeton Excess then filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Orlando seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify Hub City due to an "amusement device" exclusion that was present in the policy.
Hub City argued that the large inflatable beach ball was intended as a piece of decoration only, which would bring the complaint under the coverage of the policy.
The district court granted the summary judgment, and dismissed the case. That dismissal was upheld by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel, that noted that the district court properly rejected Hub City's argument, saying at the time of Hunt's injury, the beach ball was not an immobile decoration, but instead was a moving object. The panel also reaffirmed the district courts decision that the policy exclusion was not ambiguous because it provided a non-exhaustive list of devices that required the user to strike punch or kick the device.
Editors Note: Just because there is a list included in an insurance policy does not mean that the list is an exhaustive list. In this case, although some examples of amusement devices were listed, an inflatable beach ball was not listed. The court found that an inflatable beach ball being launched around the festival is a device that is serving to amuse, and constitutes an amusement device.
Read about the other convoluted arguments from this case at district court, here.