The Connecticut Appellate Court held recently that an exclusion in a liability policy for “Athletic Activity or Sports Participants” precluded coverage for a claim stemming from injuries that a participant in an outdoor team-building exercise allegedly suffered during a rope-assisted free fall from an elevated platform.  Community Renewal Team, Inc. v. United States Liability Ins. Co., AC 31317 (Conn. App., April 19, 2011).

The underlying claim involved injuries to a participant in a team-building exercise during an event sponsored by her employer that took place in the city of Bristol, Connecticut.  The employee alleged that during one of the team-building activities, she was to ascend to an elevated platform and perform a freefall with a rope.  She alleged that an employee of the city was supposed to catch the rope and brake her fall, but that he failed to do so, causing her to suffer severe and substantial injuries.  The injured participant brought an action against the city of Bristol, which was settled by the city’s liability insurer for $700,000.

The city’s insurer then filed a subrogation claim against the insurer of the injured woman’s employer.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer’s insurer on the basis that the injured woman’s claim was precluded by an “Athletic Activity or Sports Participants” exclusion contained in the employer’s policy.

On review, the Connecticut Appellate Court examined the employer’s insurance policy and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  The Court explained that the exclusion precluded coverage for “bodily injury to any person … participating in any … athletic activity … whether on a formal or informal basis.”  The Court noted that the city’s insurer, in its briefing, cited various dictionary definitions of “athlete” and “athletic” in order to argue that the activity might not fall within those definitions and that the exclusion was therefore ambiguous.  The Court explained, however, that “the meaning of a given word or phrase … can only be determined by reference to the factual context in which it is used or to which it is to be applied.”  In the context at issue, concluded the court, the phrase “athletic activity” “plainly and unambiguously includes” the rope-assisted free fall.

Please click here to read a copy of the Court’s decision.