Opinion ID: 3055116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Capitol issued liability insurance to Caloosa for the policy period of December 30, 2008, through December 30, 2009 (Policy). Under the Policy, Capitol agreed to defend and indemnify Caloosa for claims arising from personal injuries that occurred as a result of Caloosa’s alleged negligence or other wrongful conduct. The Policy contained several exclusions, including a “horse and horse drawn units” exclusion. That exclusion states, in pertinent part, that the “insurance 1 Caloosa also contends the “horse and horse drawn units” exclusion was outside the terms of the contract and impermissible because it was not referred to in the quote or insurance binder. The district court declined to consider this claim because it was not pled in the complaint; rather, Caloosa only asked for declaratory relief and reformation based on the Policy itself. We likewise decline to consider this unpled claim. 2 Case: 12-15790 Date Filed: 06/24/2013 Page: 3 of 5 does not apply to any bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use or operation of any horses or horse-drawn apparatus.” On or about August 29, 2009, John Freeland was injured after he fell off a horse inside a riding ring in a Caloosa common area. Freeland subsequently sued Caloosa, alleging several instances of negligence related to the design and maintenance of the riding ring. Caloosa tendered the defense and indemnification of the lawsuit to Capitol, but Capitol asserted that the claims were excluded from coverage under the “horse and horse drawn units” exclusion. Thus, Capitol refused to defend and indemnify Caloosa in the lawsuit. Caloosa subsequently filed this action seeking declaratory relief and reformation of the Policy.