Ownership and Management Of Athletic Fields Exclusion

It is clear that all sports and recreation organizations have liability for incidents that occur during scheduled, sanctioned and supervised activities such as tryouts, practice, and play.

However, some sports organizations that own or are long term lessees of athletic facilities are also legally responsible for injuries that occur on a 24/7 basis for 365 days a year.  Ownership triggers the liability for premises owners and lease agreements with hold harmless and indemnification provisions trigger the liability for long term lessees. 

If your sports organization has 24/7 liability as discussed above, you should avoid the endorsement entitled “Ownership, Maintenance, Management of Athletic Fields or Facilities Exclusion or similar exclusions.  As an alternative to removing this exclusion, some sports General Liability carriers allow a buy back that is commonly called “24 Hour Premises Liability”.

Source:  John Sadler

Team League Insurance Carrier Attempts To Deny Injury Claim

A General Liability policy was taken out under the name of  Northeast Youth Football League and its member teams and league. A certificate of insurance evidencing “additional insured” status was issued on behalf of a member team to the field owner as required by agreement. Another member team wanted to use the fields and the same certificate of insurance was submitted. A spectator was injured in a fall from a bleacher during a game for the second team. Great American E&S Insurance Company denied the claim and sought a declaratory action for its responsibility to pay for the injury.

 Great American unsuccessfully argued that the certificate of insurance did not apply to the second team since its name was not listed on the certificate of insurance. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York disagreed by reasoning that neither the certificate of insurance nor the policy included the names of any of the teams but instead listed only the league and its member teams.

Great American also argued that two separate policy exclusions would be applicable. The first was a Design Defect And Structural Maintenance Exclusion and the second was an exclusion stating that Additional Insureds were not covered for their sole negligence. However, the court reasoned that the latter exclusion could apply but said that the insurance carrier waived its right to use it as a defense since no written disclaimer was sent specifically mentioning their intent to use such exclusion.

In my opinion, had the carrier given proper notice, it is likely that they could have properly denied the claim for the additional insured field owner since the field owner was likely solely negligent in the slip and fall accident. The only way for the team to have shared in this negligence would have been due to lack of supervision or if the liability had been contractually assumed in a lease or license agreement.

 John Sadler

 Source: Rough Notes, February 2010