New Jersey Subscriber

You are correct that since your insured is an additional insured under the promoter's (the named insured) general liability policy, the insurer of that policy should defend and indemnify your insured in case he is brought into a claim or lawsuit based on the ownership or use of the premises leased to the promoter. That is the purpose of an additional insured endorsement.

However, the athletic or sports participants exclusion you sent to us applies to both the named insured and to any additional insured. The exclusion applies to bodily injury to any person who participates in a sports or athletic event that the named insured sponsors. That is what is happening here. The named insured sponsors the sporting event and bodily injury occurs to a participant. The exclusion is a general one that applies to the bodily injury happening, and it does not take its affect due to whether the additional insured sponsors the event. As long as the named insured sponsors the event and some participant is injured, the exclusion applies. The exclusion prevents coverage for the named insured and for additional insureds due to the person being injured while participating in the sports event.

Now, if the claimant can show that he suffered injury from some happening other than the sporting event, the exclusion is not applicable. You proposed the scenario that the claimant is complaining that his injuries would have been mitigated had an ambulance been on standby. If he is saying that the lack of an ambulance caused some of his injuries, then the athletic participant exclusion is not applicable to those injuries since the bodily injury did not occur while the person was participating or practicing in the sport event. If that is the case, the named insured may be charged due to his negligence, although the auto exclusion on the standard CGL form would have to be checked to see if that is applicable to the claim.

But, if the auto exclusion is not applicable, then your insured, as an additional insured, would be entitled to defense and indemnification if the claim against your insured is based on the ownership, maintenance, or use of the leased premises. Since the claim sounds as if it would be based on the lack of an ambulance being present, we don't see the connection between that and the ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises.