Insurer must defend shooting range against suicide suit

A Delaware judge ruled Tuesday that an insurer must defend a shooting range against a wrongful death suit stemming from a man’s suicide using a rented firearm.

The judge in Noble Eagle Sales LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co. found ambiguity in the rental of sporting equipment exclusion in the shooting range’s general liability policy on whether a gun is sporting equipment.

The judge concluded that exclusion did not relieve Mesa from defending Noble Eagle, stating guns are not reasonably considered sporting equipment.

“A gun or firearm is always a weapon; foundationally, elementally, hoc est quod est (it is what it is). A gun or firearm can morph into sporting equipment but does not cease to exist as a weapon – and certainly does not constitute sport equipment definitionally,” the judge wrote.

Noble Eagle obtained a general liability policy from Mesa that was effective from April 2020 until April 2021 and paid a $13,502.27 premium for coverage, court records show.

On April 7, 2020, a man rented a gun from the Dover, Delaware-based shooting range and used it to commit suicide. His family later sued Noble Eagle, which sought a defense and coverage from Mesa.

The insurer refused the request, citing the rental of sporting equipment exclusion, prompting Noble Eagle’s suit for a ruling that it is entitled to a defense and indemnification.

The parties filed competing summary judgment motions following discovery.

The judge rejected Noble Eagle’s argument that it did not technically rent the gun to the decedent since it did not collect payment for his use of the firearm.  The exclusion’s failure to clearly state that a firearm is sporting equipment made the provision ambiguous, the judge said. 

Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.