Last Monday, August 14, a federal judge for an insurer declared that "you can't always get what you want" when he denied the carrier's move to reject claims arising from a July 4, 2015 Rolling Stones concert, concluding that the actual the circumstances of the complaint give rise to a correct claim.
The Contested Claim in Indianapolis Motor Speedway, LLC v Global Live, Inc. et al. No. 1: 17-cv -01743-JMS-MPB (SD August 14, 2017) contained a claim for defense and compensation under a general responsibility policy specifically tailored to the Rolling Stones concert.
Indianapolis Motor Speedway, LLC ("IMS"), and Global Live, Inc. (Global Live) signed a special event agreement in April 201
Underlying applicants, Pamela and William Shepard, attended the concert and were injured as they stumbled across an edge while passing through an IMS tunnel. They brought an action against IMS claiming that IMS violated its duty of care by failing to provide sufficient disclosure for company invitations that left the concert.
IMS then sued Global Live and ProSight alleged allegations of breach of contract against both companies and breach of good faith and fair trade against ProSight. IMS also sought a declaratory assessment that ProSight is obliged to provide insurance cover for all requirements that arise in the underlying process. Global Live and ProSight relocated to reject IMS's complaint to fail to state a claim that IMS was not another insured under the policy and that coverage is limited to claims arising from Global Live's negligence, not the negligence of IMS.
Analyze only allegations of the complaint, the court explained the parties' arguments as to whether the complaint provided a valid ground for the action. The court stated that it did and stated that
IMS claims [d] in the complaint that Global Live was guilty of under the event agreement to obtain event insurance for all claims arising from the event, that the policy would cover Global Live's obligations against the IMS, that the policy explicitly included IMS "as an additional insured under the policy" and that the coverage of IMS would be "primarily to any other coverage (s) available to IMS."  Consequently, the allegations supported IMS's allegations of breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair trade. In addition, the Court stated that the resolution on associated issues was better saved for discovery.
With great achievements, large crowds come. It also entails a great risk of injury and resulting third-party liability claims. While many entertainment-related insurance products are designed to protect producers, promoters, landlords, vendors, and others from first-party losses, such as business interruptions and related commercial property losses, when events are interrupted or postponed, vendors must still protect against third-party claims. Entertainment industry companies should contact experienced coverage advisors to help design policy languages that cover specific events to ensure they are protected against claims arising from high performance and to seek claims if needed to ensure policyholders maximize their insurance coverage. 19659010]