Facts:
In Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Co., No. 22-12581 (11th Cir. 5/28/2024), landscaper Snell was hired by a homeowner to install an in-ground trampoline. Snell was sued for bodily injury allegedly occurring when a user of the trampoline fell off the trampoline and struck the top of a retaining wall surrounding the trampoline. Snell’s CGL insurer United Specialty denied a defense based on an endorsement that limited coverage to specified operations of landscaping.
Holding:
The federal trial court granted summary judgment for United Specialty. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Applying Alabama law, the court held that the endorsement applied to preclude coverage. However, the holding is on narrow grounds because the court relies in part on Snell’s answer to a question in the application for the policy, which the court states is part of the policy under an Alabama statute as construed by the Alabama Supreme Court. The court states that even assuming the undefined term “landscaping” is ambiguous such that it could include installation of the trampoline, Snell stated in the application for the policy that it did not install any recreational or playground equipment, which the court states “conclusively shows he is not entitled to coverage