Policy Does Not Cover Damages Caused by In-Ground Trampoline
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gjmpqjey, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/grDHyuUn and at https://lnkd.in/gEFU4bXE and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4824
United Casualty Insurance Company ("United" ) refused to defend James Snell, a landscaper, in a civil lawsuit alleging that Snell had negligently installed a ground-level trampoline in a client's backyard. Snell sued, contending that United had breached its insurance contract with him in bad faith and seeking a declaratory judgment that United had a duty to defend and indemnify Snell. The district court granted summary judgment for United, holding that the accident did not "arise from" Snell's "landscaping" work within the meaning of his commercial general liability policy.
The Eleventh Circuit resolved the dispute in James Snell, d.b.a. Outdoor Expressions v. United Specialty Insurance Company, No. 22-12581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (May 28, 2024).
BACKGROUND
Snell's landscaping company is named "Outdoor Expressions," and it is located in Fairhope, Alabama. Snell was hired by the Westons to turn an above ground trampoline into a ground level trampoline.
Snell's site work included excavation of a pit, installation of a drain and drainage sand, excavation of a trench to install a drainage pipe, installation of the drainage pipe and of a drain pump, and, most relevant here, construction of concrete block retainer walls and installation of a wood cap on the retainer walls. The retaining walls aimed to prevent erosion and collapse of the structure; the wood cap was for aesthetics. Then, after all that, Snell unboxed the trampoline, assembled it, and lowered it into the pit.
A few years later, Matthew Burton sued the Westons for injuries his daughter suffered on the Westons' trampoline. Burton alleged that Snell "wantonly assembled, constructed and installed the trampoline in the backyard of the Weston[s]'s home," creating "an unreasonably dangerous condition and structure on the property." Snell's advised his insurer of the lawsuit only to have United that it would not defend him in the lawsuit because it policy’s obligations were limited to the specified operations that Snell, as insured performs landscaping. It concluded that the injury from the assembly and installation of a Trampoline did not arise from Snell's performance of landscaping, and that there was no coverage for such claims.
In addition the application which predated the policy specifically asked Snell: "do you do any recreational or playground equipment construction or erection?" In response, Snell checked the "No" box.
DISCUSSION
Snell Has The Burden To Show Coverage.
Under Alabama law the party seeking coverage under a policy bears the burden of proving that coverage exists. In short, the Specified Operations provision (fitting into the gap left by the general coverage provision) describes the contours or boundaries of coverage-it does not purport to take away coverage already granted.
Thus, the Specified Operations provision is a limitation of coverage-not an exclusion.
Snell Has Not Shown That United Had A Duty To Defend Him.
Because Snell's insurance application-which Alabama law requires the Eleventh Circuit to consider part of the policy-expressly disclaims the work he did here. Under Alabama law, insurance contracts are subject to the same rules of interpretation as any other contract. It was undisputed that the trampoline is "recreational equipment."
Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the information Snell provided in his insurance application conclusively established he was not entitled to coverage. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Snell's insurance application forecloses any duty to indemnify for the same reason it forecloses any duty to defend.
Bad Faith
Generally, to prove a claim for bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim, the plaintiff has the burden to prove
1. the existence of an insurance contract;
2. an intentional refusal to pay the claim; and
3. the absence of any lawful basis for the refusal and the insurer's knowledge of that fact or the insurer's intentional failure to determine whether there is any lawful basis for its refusal.
The District Court, having found that United had a lawful basis for denying Snell's claim and that Snell's breach of contract claim fails, his claim for bad faith denial also fails. Snell did not show it was error to grant summary judgment on his bad faith claim.
ZALMA OPINION
The Commercial General Liability insurance policy issued to Mr. Snell, insured Snell against many risks of loss as long as they occurred as a result of his occupation as a landscaper that has no act that did not include any recreational or playground equipment construction or erection. Since the trampoline he installed was clearly an item of recreational or playground equipment thee was no potential for coverage to exist to defend or indemnify Snell for the injuries incurred when a child using the trampoline injured herself.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe & Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
