MIAMI — A federal court has ruled against group of individuals, insurance companies and horse associations regarding a horseback riding injury.
U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, ruling for the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, has stated that the Florida Standardbred Breeders & Owners Association Inc., must be reformed in its status as a corporation and its claim that the plaintiffs do not qualify as being insured under the policy. The judge ruled that the defendants are also entitled to summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will be denied as the policy does not provide coverage to the plaintiffs.
Howard Klohr, Phyllis L. Smith & Ted Bowman filed a complaint April 25, 2018, in U.S. States District Court Southern District of Florida against Mid-Continent Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, Mid-Continent Excess, while Surplus Insurance Company filed a countersuit against Klohr, Smith and Bowman, while Mid-Continent Excess and Surplus Insurance Company filed another countersuit suit against Tracy A. Williams and the Florida Standardbred Breeders & Owners Association (FSBOA).
Klohr, Smith and Bowman initially filed a declaratory judgment action. Defendant Mid-Continent (MCES) and Surplus filed a response and the plaintiffs did not reply in the time provided. The defendant also filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs responded but did not file a responsive statement of facts, so the defendant’s statement of facts were accepted.
Williams filed a suit against Klohr and Smith as owners of a racing horse, Sandshark, alleging they were to blame for an injury that was caused by the horse. Defendant MCES removed the action to federal court June 12, 2018, and made a counterclaim, bringing Williams and FSBOA into the action as counter-defendants.
Defendant MCES was seeking a ruling that the MCES-FSBOA policy be reformed and that the plaintiffs are not covered or insured under the policy. The plaintiff also alleges plaintiff Williams, is excluded from protection because she was engaged in an athletic activity.
The plaintiffs, however, argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because the athletic participation exclusion does not apply.
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida case number 9:18-CV-80761