## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 9 - 0 3 0 - CV M AR K E LI NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY AP P E L L ANT V . JI LLM U ZY KA , I N D I V I D U A LL Y A N D A PPELL EE AS NE XTF R I E ND AND P AR E NTOF K E NNE DYM UZ YK A, A MI NOR

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 348TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON T h e s o l e l e g a l i s s u e p re s e n te d i n th i s a p p e a l i s w h e th e r th e t ri a l c o u rt cor r ect l y det er m i ned t hatt he m e d i cal expense cl ai m ofA ppel l ee Ji l l M uzyka, i ndi vi du a l l y a nd a s ne xt f r i e nd a nd pa r e nt of Ke nn e dy M uz yk a , a m i nor , w as cover ed und e r a n i nsur ance pol i cy i ssued by A ppel l antM ar kel I nsur ance1 ... S eeT e x . R. C i v. P. 26 3 ( pr ovi di ng f orsubm i ssi on of agr eed

s t a t e m e nt s o ff a c t s ) ( he r e i na f t e r“ Rul e 263 "). 2 C o mp a n yt o t h e A S I G y mn a s t i c C e n t e r . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf o rt h b e l o w, we w i l l affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

II . F ACTUA LAN DP ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND O urr eci t at i on of t he pert i nent f act s i n t hi s case i s t aken f r om an agr eed st at em entof f act s si gned by t he part i es. 1 O n A pr i l 9, 20 05 , K enned y at t ended a c h i l d r e n ’ s b i rt h d a y p a rt y a t t h e ASI Gy m n a s t i c Ce n t e r . Du r i n g t he part y, K enne dy pa rt i c i pa t e d i n a ga m e c a l l e d “ t he he l i c op t e r . ” “ Th e he l i c op t er ” i s a gam e i n w hi ch an A SI em pl oye e sw i ngs a l ar ge r ope i n a ci r cl e a l ong t he gr ound as chi l dr en st andi ng i n a ci r cl e at t em ptt o j um p overt he r ope. D ur i ng t he gam e, an A S I em pl oyee sw ung the r ope t oo hi gh, cau si ng t he r ope t o hi tK enned y as sh e j um ped . The f or ceoft he r ope ’ s i m pac tkn ock ed Kenned y t o t he f l ooran d c a u s e d h e rt o b r e a kh e rle f ta r m . K e n n e d yre q u ir e d e m e r g e n c ya n d f i r s ta id m e d ic a l c a r e , x -r a y s , s u r g e r y , n u r s in g a n d p r o f e s s io n a l m e d ic a l s e r v ic e s , a s w e ll as addi t i onal f ol l ow - up m edi cal at t ent i on. Ji l l i n c ur r ed t he m edi cal expenses f orKenne dy’ s i nj ury. A t t h e ti m e o f K e n n e d y ’s i n j u ry, A S I h e l d a c o m m e rci a l g e n e ral l i a b i l i ty pol i cy i ssued by M ar kel . T he pol i cy contai ned a sect i on enti t l ed “C over age C M edi cal Pa y m e n ts, ” w hi ch st at ed i n pert i nent partt hatM ar kel w oul d pay2 ... M ar kel does notcont end t hat“t he hel i copter ” gam e const i t ut ed

“At hl et i c . . . A ct i vi t [ y] ” unde rt he pol i cy exc l us i on. 3 m edi cal expenses f orbodi l y i nj ur y caused by an acci dent t hatoccur r ed ei t her on A S I ’ s pr em i ses orbecause ofA S I ’ s oper at i ons. T h e p ol i cy al so cont ai ned an excl usi on pr ovi di ng t hatt he m edi cal paym entpr ovi si on un der“C over age C M edi cal Paym ent s” di d not appl y t o bod i l y i nj ur y i ncur r ed by “Part i c i pants , S t uden t s, and M em ber s w hi l e pa rt i c i pat i ng i n A t hl et i c, Sp ort i ng orExer ci se A c ti v i ti e s .” Ji l l f i l ed a cl ai m w i th M ar kel f orr epaym entofK enned y’ s m edi cal expenses und erA S I ’ s i nsur ance pol i cy. M ar kel decl i ned t o pay and assert ed t hat“t he hel i copter ” gam e w a s a “Spo rt i ng orExer ci se A ct i vi t [ y] ” excl uded f r om co ver ageunde rt he pol i cy. 2Ji l l s ub seq uen t l y s ued M ar ke l , s ee ki ng re c o v e ryfo r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e p a y m e n ts , a tto rn e y ’sfe e s , a n d s ta t u t o ry vi ol at i ons. The part i es agr eed t o t r y separ at el y t he i ssue of w het hert he pol i cy excl u sion a ppl i ed t o Ji l l ’ s cl ai m f orK enned y’ s m edi cal expenses. The part i es a l so ag ree d tha t t h ei ss u e w a s a q u e sti o n o f l a w an d the refo re s u b m i tted i t t o t he t r i al co urtf orj udi ci al de t er m i nat i on bym ea ns ofan ag r ee d s t at em entof fa c ts . S eeTe x. R. Ci v. P. 263. T h e p a rti e s ’ a g re e d s ta te m e n t o f fa c ts p ro v i d e s t h a tK e n n e d y ’si n j u ry occ ur r ed w hi l e s he w as on pr em i se s ow ned by A SI an d c ove r ed by t he4

in s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d b y M a rk e l , d u ri n g th e i n s u ra n c e p o l i c y p e ri o d , a n d in conn ect i on w i t h A S I ’ s oper at i ons. The part i es f urt heragr eed t hatt he i nsur ance p o l i c yd i d n o t c o n ta i n a d e fi n i ti o n o f “ A th l e ti c , S p o rti n g o r E x e rc i s e A c ti v i ti e s .” Th e part i es agr eed t hatt he pur pose oft h e b i rt h d a yp art y w as t o cel ebr at e a y o u n g g ir l’s b irt h d a yb yp la y in g g a m e s f o rf u n , t h a t“ t h e h e lic o p t e r ” g a m e is used by A S I dur i ng part i es f orfun an d t o ent ert ai n chi l dr en, an d t hatt he gam e w a s n o t us e d d u ri n g the b i rt h d a yp a rt y to p rom o te p h y sica l tr a i n i n g , stren g th b u i l d i n g , o r p h y s i c a l e n d u ra n c e . F u rth e rm o re , th e p a rti e s a g re e d th a t K e n n e d y ’s p u rpo se i n p l a y i n g “th e h e l i c o p ter” ga m e w a s “s o l e l y fo r f u n an d am u se m e n t, notf ort he pur pos e o fat hl et i cs , sport s, orexer ci se ” and t hat“M ar ke l doe s not contend t hat K enned y w as pl ayi ng t he gam e f ort he pur pose ofget t i ng i n bet t er p h y s i c a l c o n d i ti o n o r to b e c o m e m o re p h y s i c a l l yfi t.” Th e t r i al courthear d t he ar g u m e n ts ofcounsel based on t he agr eed st at em entoff a c ts. T h e t r i al courtt hen r ul ed i n f avorofJi l l , concl udi ng t hat herm edi ca l ex pen secl ai m de r i vi ng f r om K enn edy ’ s i nj ury di d notf al l w i t hi n t he3 ... I n addi t i on t o t he m edi cal expense cl ai m , Ji l l assert ed cl ai m s agai nst

M a rke l fo r br each ofcont r actand vi ol at i ons ofchapt er54 2 o ft he T exas I ns ur anc e Code. Fol l ow i ng t he t r i al cou rt ’ s j udgm ent on t he agr ee d s t at em ent off ac t s, t he t r i al co urtsev ered t he i ss ue ofw het hert he pol i cy exc l us i on app l i ed t o Ji l l ’ s m edi ca l ex pen secl ai m f r om t he brea ch ofco nt r ac tan d st at ut o r yv i o l a t i o n c l a i m s , r e n d e r i n g t h e j u d g m e n to n t h a ti s s u e f i n a l an d appeal abl e. 5 exc l us i on a nd w ast her ef or e c ove r ed by t he i ns ur anc e p ol i cy. 3T h e tri a l c o u rt’s j udg m enti ncl uded f i ndi ngs off actand concl usi ons ofl aw . II I. S TA NDA RD OFR EVI EW I n a n a pp e a l i nv ol vi ng a n a gr e e d s t a t e m e nto ff a c t s p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 263,
w e r evi ew de novo t he i ssue of w het her t he t r i al courtpr oper l y appl i ed t he l aw to th e a g re e d fa c ts . S eeT e x . R . C i v . P . 2 6 3 ; Panther Creek Ventures, Ltd. v. Co l l i nCen t. A pp rai

sa l D i st. , 234 S . W . 3d 809, 811 ( Te x. App . — Dal l a s 2007 , pe t . de ni ed ) ; A l

m a Group L. L. C. v. Pal m er, 143 S . W . 3d 840, 843 ( Tex. A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ); S tateF a rm L loyds v. Kessl er, 932 S .W .2 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 6 , w ri t de n i e d ). T h e ag ree d fac ts a re b i n d i n g o n th ep a rti e s , th e tri a l c o u rt, a n d th e re v ie w in g c o u rt. Panther, 234 S. W . 3d at811. W e c onc l us i ve l y pr es um e t hatt he part i esha ve br ought bef or e t he cou rtal l f ac t s nec es sa r y f ort he pr es ent at i on a nd a dj udi ca t i on oft he c a s e . Cum m i

n s & W

a l ker O il C o . v. Sm ith , 814 S . W . 2d 884, 886 ( Tex. A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 1 , n o w ri t).6 IV . T HET RIALC OU RT’SF I NDI NG S OFF ACT AN DL EGA LR EAS ONI NG I n i t s seco nd i ss ue, M ar ke l ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by m ak i ng f i ndi ngs of facti n a case s ubm i t t ed pur suantt o R ul e 26 3 o n an agr eed s ta te m e n t o f fa c ts . I n i ts th i rd i s s u e , M a rk e l c o n te n d s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s j udg m ent , w hi ch contai ns f i ndi ngs off actand concl usi ons ofl aw , r ef l ect s t hat t he t r i al courtappl i ed th e w ron g l egal st andar d t o t he i ssue ofw het her K e n n e d y ’sm e d i c a l e x p e n s e s w e re e x c l u d e d fro m c o v e r a g e u n d e r M a rk e l ’s pol i cy. C oncer ni ng M ar kel ’ s second i ssue, w e note t hat M ar kel f i l ed w i t h t he t r i al c o u rta re q u e s tf o rf in d in g s o ff a c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o fl a w . N o n e t h e le s s , in cases subm i t t ed t o t he t r i al courton an agr eed st at em entoff act s, no f act ual i ssue i s "t r i ed "w i t hi n t he sco p e ofTexas R ul e ofC i vi l Pr ocedu r e 29 6, w hi ch a u th o ri z e s fi n d i n g s o f fa c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . S ee Te x. Ru l e Ci v. P. 296; see, e. g. , Li

nwood v. N CNB Tex ., 8 8 5 S .W .2 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ); Po rt A rth ur In dep . Sch . Di

s t. v. Po rt A rth ur T e a ch ersA ss 'n , 990 S. W . 2d 955, 95 7– 58 ( Tex . A pp. — Beau m ont 19 99 , pet . deni ed) . C onseq u e n tl y, i n a case s u b m i tte d o n a n a g re e d s ta te m e n t o f fa c ts p u rs u a n t to R u l e 2 6 3 , w e d i s re g a rd a n yfi n d i n g s o f fa c t m a d e b yth e tri a l c o u rt. S ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 2 6 3 ; D avi s v. S tate , 90 4 S . W . 2d 94 6, 9 50 ( Tex . A pp. — A ust i n 1 99 5, no w r i t ) ( hol di ng t hat f i ndi ngs off actand concl usi ons of l aw f i l ed i n agr eed cases w i l l be di sr egar ded7

on ap pe al ) ; Clean Serve, I nc. v. Kroger

Co. , No. 01- 95- 01372

- CV , 1996 W L 475 806 , at*3 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] A ug. 22, 199 6 , w r i tde ni ed) ( not desi gnated f orp ubl i cat i on) ( st at i ng t hatco urtcannot dr aw any i nf er ence orf i nd any f ac t s notcont ai ned i n t he agr ee m entunl es s, asa m att erofl aw , t he a d d i ti o n a l i n fe re n c e o r fa c t i s n e c e s s a ri l y c o m p e l l e d b y th e a g r e e d f a c ts ); see al so Pal m er, 1 4 3 S .W .3 d a t8 4 3 (s t a t in g t h a ta p p e lla t e c o u rt s r e v i e w o n ly
w h e th e r th e tri a l c o u rt p ro p e rl y a p p l i e d th e l a w to th e s ti p u l a te d f a c t s ). Becau se w e di sr egar d any fi n d i ngs off actm ade by t he t r i al court , t he t r i al c o u rt ’s a c t o f m a k in g f in d in g s o f f a c tc a n n o tb e a g r o u n d f o rre v e r s a l o n a p p e a l. W e over r ul e M ar kel ’ s second i ssue. C o n c e rning M a rke l ’s thir d i ss u e , M a rke l ac k n o w l e d g e s i n i ts b ri e f t h a t w e app l y a denov o s t and ar d ofr evi ew t o t he i ss ue ofw het herJi l l ’ s cl ai m f or K e n n edy’ s m edi cal expenses i s excl uded und er M ar kel ’ s pol i cy. Becau se w e r evi ew t hi s l ega l i ss ue de novo , t he t r i alco urt ’ s r ea so ni ng i s not r el eva ntt o or c o n tro l l i n g o f o u r o w n d e n o v o re v i e w a n d a n a l y s i s . Se ePo rtArthur ISD , 990 S. W . 2d at 957 –58 ( r ec ogni z i ng t hat “[ t ] her e i s no pl ac e f or. . . co ncl us i onsof l aw i n c as ess ubm i t t ed pur su antto R ul e 26 3") . Thus , r ega r dl es s oft he r ea so ni ng em pl oye d by t he t r i al cou rt ( w hi ch w e d o notco ns i deri n c onduc t i ng o u ro w n d e n o v o re v i e w ) , i ft h e t r ia l c o u rtre a c h e d t h e c o r r e c tre s u lt , w e w ill a ffir m i ts ru l i n g . See Gulf Land Co. v. A tl

anti c Ref . Co. , 134 Te x. 59, 1318

S .W .2 d 7 3 , 8 4( 1 9 3 9 ) (r e c o g n i zi n g the w e l l -se ttl e d p ri n c i p l e tha t an ap p e l l a te cou rtw i l l s us t ai n t he j udgm entofa t r i al co urti fi ti s cor r ec tr eg ardl es s of
w het hert he t r i al co urtgi vest he cor r ec t l ega l r ea so n f or t he j udgm enten t er ed, o r w h e th e r th e tri a l c o u r tg i v e s a n yre a s o n a t a l l ); s e ea l s o BM CSo ftwa re Bel gi um, N. V. v. Marchand, 83 S. W . 3d 789, 794 ( Tex. 2002 ) ( r ec ogni z i ng pr i nc i pl e t ha tt r i a l c ou rtj ud gm e ntw i l l n otb e r e ve r s e d i ft r i a l c ou rtm a k es er r on e ou s c on c l us i on o fl a w g i vi ng w r on g r e a s on f ora n ot he r w i s e c or r e ct r esul t ) . C onsequ ent l y, w e over r ul e M ar kel ’ s t hi r d i ssue. V . I NJURYC OVERED UND ERP OLI CY I n i ts fi rst i ss u e , M a rke l arg u e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtm i sa p p l i e d th e l a w to t he pr esentf act s because t he pl ai n l an g u a g e ofi t s pol i cy di ct at es t hat K e n n e d y ’si n j u rys u s ta i n e d d u rin g “ th e h e l i c o p te r” g a m e c o n s ti tu te s a n i n j u ry i ncu r r ed w hi l e p art i ci pat i ng i n a “ Sport i ng orExerci seA ct i vi t [ y] ” and consequ ent l y f al l s w i t hi n t he pol i cy’ s excl usi on. A s setf ort h abov e, w e r evi ew t hi s l egal i ssue de novo, anal yzi ng th e appl i cat i on of t he l aw t o t he agr eed s ta te m e n t o f fa c ts . S eeT e x . R . C i v . P . 2 6 3 ; Panther, 234 S. W . 3d a t811; Pal m er, 1 4 3 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 3 ; Kessl er, 932 S. W . 2d a t735. A . Rul esofConst r uct i on W e c ons t r ue i ns ur anc e p ol i ci esac cor di ng t o t he s am e r ul esof c o n s tru c ti o n th a t a p p l y to c o n tra c ts g e n e ra l l y . Nat’ l Uni on F i re I ns . Co. of9

Pittsbur gh, PA v. Crocker, 2 4 6 S .W .3 d 6 0 3 , 6 0 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ); S tateF a rm Lif e I ns . Co. v. Bea ston , 90 7 S . W . 2d 43 0, 43 3 ( Tex . 19 95 ) . Enf or ci ng t he part i es’ e x p re s s e d i n te n t i s o u r p ri m a ryc o n c e rn . See For bauv. A etna Lif

e I ns . Co. , 876 S . W . 2d 13 2, 13 3 ( Tex . 1 9 9 4 ) . Ter m s i n an i nsur ance contr actw i l l be gi ven t h e iro r d in a r ym e a n in g u n le s s t h e p o lic ys h o w s t h a tt h e w o r d s w e r e m e a n tin a t e c h n i c a l o r d i ffe re n t s e n s e . G onzal ezv. Mi ssi on Am . I

ns . Co. , 795 S. W . 2d 7 3 4 , 7 3 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ); Sec. Mut. Cas . Co. v. Johns on , 584 S. W . 2d 703, 704 ( Tex. 1979 ) . W e m us t r ea d al l part s of t he con t r ac tt oge t heran d m us ts t r i ve t o gi ve m e a n i n g t o e v e r ys e n t e n c e , c l a u s e , a n d w o r d t o a v o i d r e n d e r i n g a ny p o rti o n i n o p e ra ti v e . Ba l a n dra nv. Sa f

e c o In s . Co . o f

A m. , 972 S. W . 2d 738, 7 4 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ). “ N o o n e p h r a s e , s e n t e n c e , o rs e c t io n [o ft h e p o lic y ] s h o u ld b e i s o l a te d fro m i ts s e ttin g a n d c o n s id e re d a p a rt fro m th e o th e r p ro v i s i o n s .” For bau , 876 S . W . 2d at 134 . I f t er m s i n t he con t r ac t ca n be gi ven a def i ni t e o r ce rt ai n l ega l m ea ni ng, t heyar e notam bi guous , and t he cou rtw i l l co ns t r ue t he c o n tra c t a s a m a tte r o f l a w . Fi ess v. State F

ar m Ll oyds , 202 S. W . 3d 744, 746 ( Tex . 20 06 ). H ow ever , i f , aft erappl yi ng t he r ul es ofconst r uct i on i denti f i ed abo ve, an i ns ur anc e p ol i cy r em ai nsam bi guous , w e a r e t o cons t r ue t he l ang uag e i n a m a n n e r th a t fa v o rs c o v e ra g e . Beas ton , 907 S. W . 2d a t433. N ot e ve r y di f f e r e nc e i n t he i nt e r pr e t a t i on of a c on t r a c t c r eat es an a m b i g u i ty . See Fo r

bau , 876 S. W . 2d at134. The m er e d i sa gr ee m entove rt he10

m eani ng of a part i cul arpr ovi si o n in a c o nt r actdoes notm ake i tam bi guo us. Kel ley- Coppe dge, I

nc. v. Hi

ghl an dsI ns . Co. , 980 S . W . 2d 462, 465 ( Tex. 1 9 9 8 ); G TE

Mobi l netof S. Tex. Ltd. P’

shi p v. Telecel

l C el lul ar , I nc. , 955 S .W .2 d 2 8 6 , 2 8 9 n .1 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D is t. ] 1 9 9 7 , w rit d e n ie d ). In or derf oran am bi gui t y t o e xi stw hen t he part i esad van ceco nf l i ct i ng i n te rp re ta ti o n s , b o th i n te rp re ta ti o n s m u s t b e re a s o n a b l e . Se e Col um bi a G as T ra n sm i ssi o nCo rp . v. New Ul

m Gas, Ltd. , 9 4 0 S .W .2 d 5 8 7 , 5 8 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ). B. Th e Excl usi on i s N otA m bi guo us; “The H el i copter ” G am e i s nota Spo rt i ng orExer ci se A ct i vi ty und ert he Po l i cy Th e pol i cy excl usi on cl ear l y st at es t hat t he sect i on i n t he i nsur ance pol i cy ent i t l ed “C over age C M edi cal Paym ent s” does notapply t o “Part i ci pants , S t uden t s, and M em ber s w hi l e pa rt i c i pat i ng i n A t hl et i c, Sp ort i ng, orExer ci se A ct i vi t i es . ” N ei t herpa rt y a r gue s t hata per so n c oul d r ea d t he l ang uag e o ft he excl usi on as app lyi ng“ C o v e r a g e C M e d ic a l P a y m e n t s ” t o in d iv id u a ls p a rti c i p a ti n g i n s u c h a c ti v i ti e s . S ee general ly Fiess , 202 S . W . 3d at747 ( st at i ng t hatcl aus e “ w e do n ot coverl os s ca us ed by m ol d” i n i ns ur anc e p ol i cy i s not am bi guo us because f ew or di nar y peop l e w oul d r ead i tt o say “w e do t oo cov er l o s s c a u s e d b ym o l d ” ). R eadi ng t he pol i cy i n i t s ent i r et y, i ti s cl eart hatt he excl usi on i s i nt ended t o e xc l ud e c ov e r a gef ori nj ur i e s i nc ur r e d du r i ng a c e rt a i n c l a s s o fp hy s i cal11

act i vi t i es t hatw oul d ot her w i se be cover ed und ert he t er m s of t he pol i cy, t hat i s , a th l e ti c , sp o rti n g , o r e x e rc i s e a c ti v i ti e s . S ee For bau , 876 S. W . 2d a t134. T h ro u g h th e a g re e d s ta te m e n t o f fa c ts , M a rk e l c o n c e d e d th a t “ th e h e l i c o p te r” g a m e w a s n o ta n a th l e ti c a c ti v i ty , a n d b o th p a rti e s a g re e th a t th e te rm s

“ S p o rti n g o r E x e rc i s e A c ti v i ti e s ” s h o u l d b e g i v e n th e i r p l a i n a n d o rd i n a ry m ea ni ng i n de t er m i ni ng w het he r“ t he hel i cop t er ” gam e i s a “ Sport i ng or E x e rc i s e A c ti v i t[y ]” ; th e p a rti e s s i m p l yd i s a g re e a b o u t th e p l a i n a n d o r d in a ry m e a n in g o ft h e s e w o r d s . T h e m e r e d is a g r e e m e n t b y t h e p a rt ie s a s t o t h e p la in and or di nary m ea ni ng of“ Spo r t i ng o rExe r ci seA ct i vi t i es ” doe s notm ak e t he e x c l u s i o n a m b i g u o u s . S ee Kel ley- Copp edge, I

nc. , 9 8 0 S .W .2 d a t 4 6 5 ; GTE Mobi l net, 9 5 5 S .W .2 d a t2 8 9 n .1 . O n lyw h e n , a f t e ra p p ly in g t h e a p p lic a b le r u le s o f c o n s t r u c t io n , a c o n t r a c tt e r m iss u s c e p t ib le o ft w o o rm o r e re a s o n a b le i n te rp re ta ti o n s w i l l th e te rm b e a m b i g u o u s . Glo ver v. Na t’l In s . Un derwriters , 545 S. W . 2d 755, 761 ( Tex. 1 977 ) . W e hol d t hatt he l ang uag e o ft he exc l us i on i s notam bi guous ; w e l ookt o t he pl ai n l ang uag e o ft he exc l us i on t o de t er m i ne w h e th e r J i l l ’sc l a i m fo r K e n n e d y ’sm e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i s c o v e re d u n d e r M a rk e l ’s pol i cy. I n d e t er m i ni ng t he or di nar y and gen er al l y accept ed m eani ng of an und ef i ned t er m i n an unam bi guo us i nsur ance pol i cy pr ovi si on, Texas cou rt s m ay c o n s u l t d i c ti o n a ri e s . See Mes ca lero Ener gy, I nc. v. Under wr

iter s I ndem . G en.12

A gency, I

nc. , 5 6 S .W .3 d 3 1 3 , 3 2 0 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 1 , p e t. den i ed) ( st at i ng tha tTexa s cou rt s oft en l ookt o di ct i ona r i est o de t er m i ne o rd i n a r ya n d g e n e ra l l ya c c e p te d m e a n i n g s o f c o n tra c t te rm s ); see al so Fi ess , 202 S . W . 3d at751 & n. 30 ( con su l t i ng Web s ter’sNe wCo l legi a teD i c ti o n a ryf or m e a n i n g o f “o th e rw i se ” i n an i n su ran c e p o l i c y ). C o n su l ti n g d i c ti o n a ri e s to d e te rm i n e th e p l a i n a n d o rd i n a rym e a n i n g o f “ E x e rc i s e o r S p o rti n g A c ti v i ti e s ,” onedi ct i ona r y de f i nes“ exe r ci se ” as“ bodi l y orm ent al ex ert i on, es pec i al l y f or t he sake oft r ai ni ng ori m pr ovem entofheal t h. ” D i ct i onar y. com , Exer ci se, h ttp ://d i c ti o n a r y .re fe re n c e .c o m /b ro w s e /e x e rc i s e (l a s t v i s i te d J u l y2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ). A notherdi ct i onar y def i ni t i on of “exer ci se”— t he one po si t ed by M ar kel

— i s an

“ a c tiv i ty re q u i ri n g p h y sica l o r m e n tal ex e rt i o n , e sp e c i a l l yw h e n p e rf o rm e d to m a i n ta i n o r d e v e l o p fi tn e s s .” A s gen er al l y un der st ood a nd r ea so nabl y c ons t r ued , t he def i ni t i on of “exer ci se” i ncl udes an i nt entr equi r em ent
— t o m ai nt a i n a n d devel op ph ysi cal f i t ness, ort o t r ai n or t o i m pr ove heal t h. Th e part i es’ agr eed st at em entoff act s, h o w e v e r, i n d i c a tes tha t “th e h e l i c o p ter” g a m e w a s a b i rt h d a yp a rt yac ti v i ty i nt end ed f orf un a nd no tus ed t o pr om ot e phys i ca l t r ai ni ng, s t r eng t h bui l di ng, orphysi cal endur ance. M a r k e l n o n e th e l e s s a rg u e s o n a p p e a l , u ti l i z i n g i ts p ro p o s e d d i c ti o n a ry def i ni t i on of“ exe r ci se ” asan “ ac t i vi t y r equ i r i ng ph ys i ca l orm ent al ex ert i on,13

es pec i al l y w hen pe r f or m ed t o m ai nt ai n orde vel op f i t nes s, ” t hat“ es pec i al l y” does not m ean “onl y” and t hat“exer ci se” i s anyact i vi t y t hat“m er el y r equi r es phys i ca l orm ent al exert i on. ” M ar ke l cl ai m s t hatj um pi ng overa r opedur i ng a gam e i s an act i vi t y r equi r i ng ph ysi cal exert i on a n d t her ef or e const i t ut es e x e rc i s e . H o w e v e r, th i s in te rp re ta ti o n o f e x e rc i s e i s u n re a s o n a b l e a n d re n d e rs t he ent i r e pol i cy m eani ngl ess because vi rt ual l y al l act i vi t i es r equi r e som e l evel o fp h y s ic a l o r m e n ta l e x e rti o n . S ee Coker v. Coker, 6 5 0 S . W . 2 d 3 9 1 , 3 93 (T e x . 1 9 8 3 ) (no ti n g tha t i n su ran c e p o l i c ym u st b e c o n stru e d to g i v e effe c t t o al l t er m s so t hatnonear e r end er ed m ea ni ngl es s) . M ar ke l s ugge st s t hatt he p o l i c ym a yh a v e c o v e re d K e n n e d y ’si n j u r yh a d i t b e e n i n c u rre d b yK e n n e d y ’s sl i ppi ng on w at eron t he f l oorw hi l e w al ki ng t o t he ba t hroo m . Butunde rt he b r o a d d e f i n i t i o n o f“ e x e r c is e ” u r g e d b yM a r k e l, a n in ju r yin c u r r e d b ym e r e ly
w al ki ng t o t he bat hr oom — an act i vi t y w hi ch cl ear l y const i t ut es som e physi cal exe rt i on— w oul d beex cl ude d f r om co ver ageas an exe r ci seact i vi t y. W e w i l l not con st r ue con t r ac t s t o pr oduc e a n abs ur d r es ul tw hen a r ea so nab l e a l t er nat i ve c o n s tru c ti o n e x i s ts . S . Co un ty Mu t. I n s . v. Sure ty Ba n k, N. A. , 270 S. W . 3d 6 8 4 , 6 8 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). W e h ol d t hat“ t he hel i cop t er ” gam e p l aye d a tt he bi rt hda y pa rt y w asnot a n “ E x e rc i s e A c ti v i t[y ]” u n d e r th e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f th e e x c l u s i o n .14

M a r k e l n e x ta r g u e st h a t“ t h e h e l i c o p t e r ” g a m e i s a s p o rt i n g a c t i vi t y. “Sport ” i s def i ned as“ at hl et i c a ct i vi t y r equ i r i ng s ki l l orphy si ca l pr ow es s and oft en ofa com pet i t i ve nat ur e, [ su ch] as r ac i ng, bas eba l l , t enn i s, gol f , bow l i ng, w res tl i n g , b o x i n g , h u n ti n g , fi sh i n g , e tc.” D i c tio n a ry.c o m , S p o rt , ht t p: //di ct i ona r y. r ef er enc e. com / br ow se /sp ort( l as tvi si t ed Jul y 24, 2009 ) . The def i ni t i on o f “ sport ” r ef er s t o an “at hl et i c act i vi t y, ” and t he part i es’ agr eed s t a t e m e n to ff a c t s a c k n o w le d g e s t h a t“ t h e h e lic o p t e r ” g a m e is n o t a n “ a t h le t ic act i vi t y. ” Furt her m o re, th e part i es’ agr eed st at em entoff act s i ndi cat es t hat

“ t h e h e l i c o p t e r ” g a m e isd e s ig n e d a s a n a c t iv it yf o rc h ild r e n t o p a rt ic ip a t e in
w hi l e ata bi rt hday p art y and do es notr equi r e any part i cul arski l l orphysi cal pr ow es s. The part i es ’ ag r ee d st at em entoff ac t s doe s nots ugge stt hat“ t he hel i copter ” gam e w as ofa com pet i t i ve nat ur e. To t he contr ar y, t he agr eed st at em entoff ac t s cl ea r l y s t at es t hatt he gam e w asi nt end ed so l el y f orf un a nd e n tertai n m e n t. C o n se q u e n tl y , w e h o l d tha t “ th e h e l i c o p ter” g a m e i s n o t a sp ort i ng a ct i vi t y un dert he pl ai n l ang uag e o ft he exc l us i on. Beca u s e w e h a v e h e l d t h a t “ t h e h e l i c o p t e r ” g a m e i s n o t a “ Sp o r t i ng or Exe r ci seA ct i vi t [ y] ” unde r t he pl ai n l ang uag e oft he exc l us i on, w e h ol d t hatt he t r i al courtdi d not er rby r ender i ng j udg m entagai nstM ar kel t hatJi l l ’ s m edi cal expense cl ai m i s cov er ed und erthe i nsur ance pol i cy. W e o ver r ul e M ar kel ’ s f i r st i ssue.15 V I. C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d M a rk e l ’sth r e e is s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t6, 2009