The coverage dispute centers on an injury that occurred in the parking lot of the Bud Dome sports facility in April 2023, when plaintiff A.N. was allegedly hurt by a chain negligently placed by facility operator Budrovich Indoor Training I, LLC on the baseball side of the property. West Bend had issued an insurance policy to Crossfire Elite Volleyball Club, which leased interior space at the facility for volleyball operations, but Budrovich is seeking coverage as an additional insured under that policy.
In its motion, West Bend argued that Budrovich fails to meet the conditions for additional insured coverage under the policy, which requires that liability arise from either Crossfire's ongoing operations performed for the insured at the designated location or on premises owned or used by Crossfire. The insurer contended that 'the personal injury alleged in the Underlying Petition was not caused by Crossfire's ongoing operations performed for Budrovich at the location designated in the written contract, or on the premises owned or used by Crossfire.'
West Bend specifically rejected any causal connection between Crossfire's volleyball operations and the parking lot injury, arguing that 'the but for cause of A.N.'s injury was not her attendance at the volleyball tournament because she could have very well attended the volleyball tournament and parked on the Volleyball Side of the facility, so as not to be exposed to the danger.' Instead, the insurer maintained that the plaintiff 'was injured due to a chain that was negligently placed by Budrovich on the Baseball Side parking lot.'
The case stems from a lease agreement between Crossfire and Budrovich that took effect September 1, 2020, and was in force when the injury occurred on April 15, 2023. West Bend's policy covering Crossfire ran from September 2022 to September 2023. The lease contains an indemnification clause requiring the tenant to defend and hold harmless the landlord against claims arising from injuries sustained 'in or about the Premises' or resulting from the tenant's negligence.
West Bend argued that neither the lease obligations nor the insurance policy terms support coverage for Budrovich, noting that 'A.N.'s injuries did not occur on premises owned or used by Crossfire – those specifically identified spaces leased by Crossfire are located on the interior of the Bud Dome; rather, they occurred in the exterior parking lot on the Baseball Side of the building.' The insurer also emphasized that the underlying plaintiffs 'have not alleged any negligence on the part of Crossfire, nor are there any allegations that Crossfire failed to perform any of its obligations under the Lease.'
The motion relies on Missouri law establishing that where a party seeks coverage as a conditional additional insured, 'it must establish the right to coverage under an insurance policy that it did not bargain for or purchase, and it must meet the burden of proving that the claim is within the coverage afforded by the policy,' citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. D.T.S. and Clarinet, LLC v. Essex Ins. Co.
West Bend concluded that 'no genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment' and that 'the undisputed facts demonstrate that the underlying allegations were not caused by Crossfire's ongoing operations performed for Budrovich at the location designated in the written contract or on the premises owned or used by Crossfire.' The coverage dispute highlights common issues in additional insured claims where the geographic scope of coverage and causal connection to the named insured's operations become critical factors in determining coverage obligations.