In this instance, though, the insured may seek reimbursement from another party. Some legal courts have ruled that golf courses are responsible for the damage inflicted by errant golf balls on connecting properties. For example, a Massachusetts appeals court ruled that “continuing and frequent invasion of golf balls from a private golf course onto a homeowner's property constituted a continuing trespass.” (Amaral v. Cuppels, 831 N.E.2d 915 [Mass App. Ct. 2005].) While the court did not prescribe a specific remedy for the trespass, it did state that measures such as modifying the hole from where the wayward golf balls originated would not be a hardship sufficient “to relieve the defendant [golf course] of the obligation to eliminate a continuing trespass.”

Similarly, in an action for negligence, MEC Leasing v. Jarrett, 164 P.3d 344 (Or. App. 2007), a court held that the common-law rule regarding property owner responsibility applied where vehicles parked on an adjoining property were struck and damaged by golf balls hit off the course's premises. While the court recognized that the golf course owner was not the actual one hitting the golf balls that caused the damage, it stated that the owner “knowingly permitted others to partake in activities on the property that the defendant operated that caused damage to the plaintiff's property.” The court opined that a jury may find that his allowing the activities created a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm and that, when informed of the risk, he did not respond adequately to prevent the injury.

Golf balls that fly off the links are not the only cause for concern, as those that stay on track can wreak havoc, as well. For instance, golfers and bystanders alike are at risk of being hit by golf balls in play. The resulting bodily injury may or may not be covered by the injured's homeowner's policy, depending on the wording. One insurer stated that bodily injuries to an insured are not covered under the policy's household exclusion in West American Ins. Co. v. Bedwell, 715 N.E.2d 759 (Ill. App. 1999). Daryl and Crystal Bedwell's son, Curtis, was struck in the head by a golf ball hit by Gregory Kreps. At the time of the accident, Curtis was riding in a rented golf cart at Bushnell Golf Club. The Bedwells filed personal injury actions against Kreps and the golf course, both of which countersued, alleging contributory negligence on the part of the Bedwells.

In this case, the insureds brought the golf cart into play, too. The Bedwells contended that their homeowner's policy provided coverage for golf carts, making it a vehicle insurance policy, subject to the Illinois Vehicle Code, which states, “A provision in a policy of vehicle insurance…excluding coverage for bodily injury to members of the family of the insured shall not be applicable when a third party acquires a right of contribution against a member of the injured person's family.” West American argued that a golf cart is not a vehicle as defined by the statute. The court, however, said, “We conclude, therefore, to the extent that the West American policy provides vehicle insurance, it is a policy of vehicle insurance and [the statute] renders the household insurance exclusion inapplicable.” Thus, the court found that West American owed the Bedwells a duty to defend in the underlying cause of action.

Golf courses provide a variety of unique exposures, from design issues and golf-cart usage to pesticide application, and, yes, out-of-control golf balls. Potential coverage for property damage and bodily injury resulting from these small, white projectiles may be available from more than one policy. So, before moving to that house built next to a fairway or yelling “Fore!” one should consider the implications of rogue golf balls and who is responsible for them.

Susan Massmann, CPCU, is an assistant editor for FC&S. She may be reached at [email protected].