Wesley Patterson v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813

Background

Wesley Patterson, a student cheerleader at Prairie View A&M, attended a Gymnastics II class taught by the cheer coach, Jim Price, to practice tumbling; he was not initially enrolled but later did enroll.
During a graded skills exam in Gymnastics II, Patterson attempted a tumbling sequence, fell, and suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury.
Mutual of Omaha issued a Catastrophic Injury Blanket Insurance Policy to NCAA member schools that covers student cheerleaders injured during certain "Covered Events," including "practice sessions" authorized, organized, and directly supervised by a safety-certified coach and in preparation for a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team competition.
District court granted summary judgment to Patterson, concluding Gymnastics II qualified as a covered "practice session;" Mutual appealed the definition and scope of "practice session."
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, applying Indiana contract law and ordinary-policyholder interpretation rules, and analyzed four coverage requirements derived from the Policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gymnastics II is a "practice session" under the Policy	Gymnastics II was a meeting devoted to systematic exercise for cheerleading proficiency; an ordinary policyholder would view it as practice	"Practice session" should exclude curricular classes and require features like mandatory attendance, tryouts, identical skills, or noncredit status	Held: Gymnastics II can be a "practice session"; dictionary meaning and factual overlap with cheer practice support coverage
Whether the session was authorized/organized/supervised by the coach	Price directed instruction, tailored class to skills used in cheer, allowed non-enrolled cheerleaders to attend, and effectively turned class into cheer practice	Price lacked authority to determine course offering/schedule, so he could not "authorize" the session in the Policy sense	Held: Price authorized the cheerleading activities within the class (authorization need not include institution-level curricular decisions)
Whether activities were "in preparation for a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team competition"	Tumbling practiced in class was the same skill used at football/basketball games; need not tie practice to a specific future game	Because routine was performed for a grade and part of a class, it was not practice "in preparation" for competitions	Held: Sufficiently in preparation — no requirement to identify a particular future game; practicing tumbling during season satisfies this element
Whether activities were "directly associated" with a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team	The tumbling practiced was used during games and thus directly associated	The class context and grading distinguish it from activities "directly associated" with team competitions	Held: Requirement satisfied — the activity was directly associated with qualifying team competitions

Key Cases Cited

Land O’ Lakes, Inc. v. Empl’rs Ins. Co. of Wausau, 728 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for insurance contract interpretation on appeal)
Bradshaw v. Chandler, 916 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. 2009) (use plain-meaning and ordinary-policyholder perspective in interpreting insurance terms)
Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 2005) (clarifies interpretation and ambiguity principles in insurance contracts)
Town of Orland v. Nat’l Fire & Cas. Co., 726 N.E.2d 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (insurance policy interpretation generally a question of law)
City of Lawrenceburg v. Milestone Contractors, L.P., 809 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (ambiguity can be resolved as a matter of law where no factual determination is needed)
USA Life One Ins. Co. of Ind. v. Nuckolls, 682 N.E.2d 534 (Ind. 1997) (courts may consult dictionary definitions to ascertain ordinary meanings)
Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1995) (recognizes overlap between curricular physical education and athletic practice)
Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001) (school policies may allow extracurriculars to satisfy curricular requirements)