Delaware Superior Court Decision Imparts Lessons for Insurance Agents and Brokers Regarding Policy Exclusions and Language
In June 2024, the Delaware Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment, requiring an insurance company to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in regard to underlying litigation. In doing so, the court issued a coverage decision demonstrating the importance that a policy be clear and unambiguous to avoid the contract language being construed against the insurance company. The decision also highlights the need for agents and brokers to consider the industry their clients are in and the services they offer in order to understand the reasonable expectations of those insurers when providing insurance liability policies.
In Noble Eagle Sales, LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, et al., 2024 WL 2830922 (Del. Super. Ct. 2024), Noble Eagle, the insured, operated a shooting range where a patron used one of its guns to commit suicide. The decedent’s family and estate subsequently sued Noble Eagle, which had requested coverage for the lawsuit under their insurance policy. The insurance company denied coverage, citing an exclusion within the policy. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, seeking a decision from the court on whether coverage applied.
The argument centered on an exclusion found within the policy excluding coverage for bodily injuries caused by sporting equipment rented out by Noble Eagle. Noble Eagle argued that the exclusion did not clearly define sporting equipment, therefore, making the exclusion ambiguous as to whether a firearm fell within the exclusion. The insurance company argued the exclusion’s plain meaning clearly conveyed what was excluded and, thus, was not ambiguous and that without any ambiguity, the exclusion must be applied in this case.
The court determined that the term “sporting equipment” was ambiguous and the exclusion could not be enforced in this case. In doing so, the court looked to the standard for insurance contract interpretation.
The “interpretation of a contract must rely on a reading of all pertinent provisions of the policy as a whole, and not on any single passage in isolation.” Id. citing O’Brien v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281, 287 (Del. 2001). Clear and unambiguous contract terms are given their plain meaning. Id. citing Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1195 (Del. 1992). Ambiguity exists when the contract term is reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more meanings. Id. “When ambiguity does exist, ‘the language of an insurance contract [must] be construed most strongly against the insurance company that drafted it.’” Id. In order to avoid its duty to defend its insured, an insurer must demonstrate that the allegations of the complaint are solely and entirely within specific and unambiguous exclusions from coverage. Id. citing Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co., 1992 WL 22690, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992).
The court first addressed whether the decedent had rented the firearm. They determined the transaction unquestionably fit into the definition of “rented out” and that Noble Eagle’s decision to not charge the decedent’s estate for the rental does not transform the transaction.
In turning to the definition of “sporting equipment” in the exclusion, the court looked to the definitions in the policy, and “sporting equipment” was not defined. Noble Eagle argued that reasonable minds could differ as to when a firearm qualifies as “sporting equipment.” The insurance company argued Noble Eagle only rented out “guns, protective eyewear, and earplugs” and that if firearms are not “sporting equipment,” the exclusion is meaningless.
The court determined that the core question it must answer hinged on whether firearms are always, definitionally, sporting equipment. The court applied Delaware decisional law and determined the exclusion could only be enforced if the sole reasonable interpretation of “sporting equipment” encompassed all of the firearms Noble Eagle rented out, regardless of the purpose for which the customer rents the firearm. The court then looked to the Merriam-Webster definition of firearm and sporting equipment. Turning to the policy language, the court determined there was more than one reasonable interpretation as to whether sporting equipment always included firearms.
The court cannot determine from the plain language of the policy where to draw the line between firearms that can be sporting equipment, and firearms that are always sporting equipment. MUSIC, as the insurer, stood as the party best positioned to make that delineation when drafting the Policy. MUSIC’s failure to do so renders the Rental Exclusion’s application to firearm rentals ambiguous.
Id. The court further found ambiguity regarding what shooting activities would be considered sports under the policy, as firearms could be rented for either shooting practice or testing out a firearm for purchase, among others.
In finding ambiguity, the court construed the exclusion most strongly against the insurance company. The court was unable to find that all firearms were unequivocally and definitionally “sporting equipment.” According to the court, the insurance company failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the exclusion barred coverage in this case. Further, the court found the insurance company was aware, at the time of issuing the policy, that Noble Eagle rented firearms. Therefore, Noble Eagle had a reasonable expectation, as a shooting range that paid $14,000 for a liability policy, that they would have coverage in place for liability involving firearms. The court also took into consideration that the policy did define some definition of “sporting equipment,” as it explicitly referenced golf and tennis equipment. Finally, the court noted that the litigation highlighted the benefit to the insurance company of the ambiguity in the policy exclusion and the requirement under Delaware law to construe the policy against the insurer.
This case demonstrates the importance that a policy—including its exclusions—be clear and unambiguous. Further, agents and brokers must take into consideration the type of business and services being provided by an insurer, the reasonable expectations of those insurers in obtaining liability policies, and the implications of any potential exclusions that may apply.
Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers, November 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tgventura@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.