This is the case of a sensibly thrifty third party who, without having to pay in advance, rented a firearm from the insured gun dealer to terminate his own life in the shooting range. 

The deceased’s estate and family sued for wrongful death and negligence. The gun dealer which operated the shooting range which rented the firearm and sued its insurer and insurance broker when they declined to indemnify it for the costs of a lawsuit brought by the estate of the deceased. 

The shooting range’s commercial general liability policy covered bodily injury that occurs at the shooting range but excluded bodily injury “arising out of the use of sporting equipment rented out by the insured”.  Safe to say that “sporting equipment” does not include golf or tennis equipment, there was no definition of the term in the policy.

The court held that the policy was ambiguous as to whether a firearm falls under “sporting equipment” and said it “cannot conclude all firearms are unequivocally and definitionally” sporting equipment. Nor can the Court conclude all activities that occur at a shooting range of sports”. 

The court pointed out that, aside from participating in target shooting, competition or practising for one, there are a myriad of reasons why a customer may wish to rent time with a firearm on a shooting range.  Practice for self-defence; acclimating to a new firearm; testing out a firearm to purchase; law enforcement training; and training as part of a firearm class are all possible reasons to rent a firearm.  Those reasons do not fit unambiguously into the definition of “sporting equipment”.

The suggestion by the gun dealer that there was no rental because the rent was not paid was easily dismissed by the court. The transaction involving the firearm unquestionably fitted the definition of “rented out”. Once patrons incur their obligation to pay for possessing the firearm, a rental occurs even if the gun dealer chooses not to charge rent upfront.

The insurance principles, and outcome, would be no different under South African law where ambiguities in a policy are interpreted against the insurer drafting the policy. It is not known at this stage on what basis the dependants would allege that the gun dealer acted wrongfully and negligently.