Maxum Indemnity Company v. Dirty Foot Mud Ranch, LLC et al

Filing 31

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Final Summary Judgment 27 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment against Dirty Foot Mud Ranch, LLC d/b/a Dirty Foot Adventure Run 28 is GRANTED. The Court hereby declares that Plaintiff has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendants in the Underlying Action. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 9/27/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-2680-T-30AEP

DIRTY FOOT MUD RANCH, LLC and
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary
Judgment against Land Development Company of Central Florida, LLC (Dkt. 27),
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment against Dirty Foot Mud Ranch, LLC
d/b/a Dirty Foot Adventure Run (Dkt. 28) and Defendant Land Development Company of
Central Florida, LLC’s Notice of No Opposition to DE 27 (Dkt. 30). The Court notes that
neither party opposes Plaintiff’s motions.

Moreover, the motions are sufficiently

supported by the facts and relevant law. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions
and directs the Clerk to enter final judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Maxum I n d e m n i t y C o m p a n y initiated this lawsuit seeking a judicial
declaration that it does not owe any duty to defend or indemnify Defendants Dirty
Foot Mud Ranch, LLC and Land Devel op ment Co mpan y o f Central Florida,

LLC for a lawsuit filed by Adam Durden. Specifically, Maxum contends that there is
no coverage for Durden’s injuries he alleges he sustained during a mud race obstacle
course running competition on Dirty Foot’s premises because the Maxum policy
includes exclusions for Athletic or Sports Participants or Performers and Participants
and Contestants in any performance, contest, sport, or event.
On December 21, 2016, a Clerk’s Default was entered against Dirty Foot for its
failure to respond to the complaint (Dkt. 18). Maxum now moves for a default final
judgment against Dirty Foot based on its default and the well-pleaded facts alleged in
Maxum’s complaint, which are deemed admitted.
Maxum also moves for summary judgment against Land Development Company
based on the same exclusions in the subject policy.

Although Land Development

Company filed an answer to the complaint, Land Development Company notified the Court
that it does not oppose the entry of judgment against it. See (Dkt. 30).
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (2016) because the lawsuit is between citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of
interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
The record reflects that Durden sued Dirty Foot for injuries he sustained while
competing in an obstacle course race on premises leased, owned, or operated by Dirty
Foot (“Underlying Action”). Durden makes the following allegations:

2

• that Dirty Foot leased the subject premises, and designed and created an
obstacle course, with the intention of inviting athletes to race on the obstacle
course. Dirty Foot was allegedly negligent in the design and creation of the
mud pit by failing to include the proper water depth of the pit;
• after creating the obstacle course, Dirty Foot and Land Development organized
a race and invited athletes, including Durden, to participate;
• Land Development was also negligent in failing to maintain the proper water
depth of the mud pit; and
• Durden suffered bodily injuries while competing in the race.
The record reflects that Maxum issued a Commercial General Liability policy to
Dirty Foot, bearing Policy No. BDG 0057195-01, with coverage incepting on 11/25/2011
and terminating on 06/29/2012 (the “Policy”). The policy’s commercial general liability
coverage part (Form CG 00 01 12 07) provides in pertinent part:
SECTION I – COVERAGES
COVERAGE A – BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
LIABILITY
1. Insuring Agreement
a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay
as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this
insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured
against any “suit” seeking those damages even if the allegations of the “suit”
are groundless, false or fraudulent. However, we will have no duty to defend
the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily injury” or
“property damage” to which this insurance does not apply…
SECTION V – DEFINITIONS

3

3.
“Bodily injury” means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a
person, including death resulting from these at any time.…

The policy also contains Form E787 (6/1/2000), which provides:

EXCLUSION – ATHLETIC OR SPORTS PARTICIPANTS AND
PERFORMERS
This insurance does not apply to any claim or “suit” for “bodily injury,” property
damage,” “personal and advertising injury” and we shall have no obligation to
indemnify or defend any insured for “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or
“personal and advertising injury” from any person while participating or
performing for or in any sports or athletic contest, event, or exhibition that you
sponsor, including practice for such contest, event or exhibition.
The policy also contains Form E642 (1/1/2009), which provides:

EXCLUSION – PARTICIPANTS AND CONTESTANTS
This insurance does not apply to any claim or “suit” for “bodily injury,” “property
damage,” “personal and advertising injury” and we shall have no obligation to
indemnify or defend any insured for “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or
“personal and advertising injury” which occurs while any person is preparing for,
practicing for or participating in any performance, contest, sport or event.
Maxum denied coverage to Dirty Foot because Durden was injured during a mud
race obstacle course on Dirty Foot’s and Land Development’s property.
It is undisputed that, because Durden was injured while participating in Dirty Foot’s
obstacle course race, Maxum has no duty to defend or indemnify Dirty Foot based on the
Policy’s Athletic and Sports Participant Exclusion (Form E787 (6/1/2000)).
It is also undisputed that the Policy’s Participants and Contestants Exclusion (Form
E642 (1/1/2009)) applies because Durden was injured while participating in the obstacle

4

course race.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Maxum owes no coverage for

Durden’s injuries as a matter of law.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment against Dirty Foot

Mud Ranch, LLC d/b/a Dirty Foot Adventure Run (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED.
3.

The Court hereby declares that Plaintiff has no obligation to defend or

indemnify Defendants in the Underlying Action.
4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff

and against Defendants.
5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending

motions as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of September, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

5