A Delaware trial court has held that the undefined term “sporting equipment” in an exclusion is ambiguous as applied to firearms such that a firearm does not always constitute “sporting equipment.” In Noble Eagle Sales, LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co., C.A. No. K22C-03-022 RLG (Del. Super. Ct. 6/4/2024), insured Noble Eagle operated a shooting range and firearms store. A customer obtained a firearm from Noble Eagle, entered the shooting range, and committed suicide. The customer’s estate filed suit against Noble Eagle alleging various negligence claims. Noble Eagle tendered the suit to Mesa Underwriters which had issued a commercial general liability policy to Noble Eagle. Mesa denied defense and indemnity obligations based on a “Rental of Sporting Equipment Exclusion” which applied in pertinent part to bodily injury “arising out of the use of sporting equipment rented out by the insured.” Noble Eagle filed suit against Mesa seeking judicial declarations that Mesa owed both defense and indemnity obligations. Finding the undefined term to be ambiguous. The trial court entered summary judgment for Noble Eagle, holding that Mesa owed duties to defend and indemnity Noble Eagle. The court found that whether a firearm constitutes “sporting equipment” depends upon its use at the time. While Noble Eagle at times hosted shooting sports events, when in fact its firearms would constitute “sporting equipment,” the customer here was not participating in such an event. Other uses of the insured’s firearms would be self-defense practice, law enforcement training, gun safety training, and prospective buyers testing a firearm. While used in these contexts, firearms would not constitute “sporting equipment.”
A Firearm Is Not Always “Sporting Equipment”
