Background
Megalomedia produces My 600-lb Life, which follows participants attempting to lose weight. After former participants or their family members sued Megalomedia in Texas state court over alleged injuries arising from the production, Philadelphia Indemnity refused to defend or indemnify the company. Philadelphia relied on an endorsement excluding from Coverage A bodily-injury and property-damage liability arising from “any/all reality shows.”
Philadelphia sought a federal declaratory judgment that it owed no defense or indemnity. Megalomedia counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court granted Philadelphia summary judgment on coverage and, after a bench trial, rejected Megalomedia’s remaining claims. Following a jurisdictional remand that confirmed diversity of citizenship, the appeal returned to the Fifth Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Judge Duncan’s majority opinion did not decide whether “reality shows” is ambiguous or whether My 600-lb Life falls within that term. Instead, it held that Megalomedia forfeited that theory by failing to raise it at summary judgment and by repeatedly representing below that My 600-lb Life was a reality show. Megalomedia could not reverse course on appeal after unsuccessfully arguing in the district court that the exclusion’s wording left reality shows covered.
The majority also upheld the rejection of Megalomedia’s fraudulent-inducement claim because the record supported the finding that Megalomedia knew the policy excluded reality television and treated My 600-lb Life as a reality show. That finding defeated justifiable reliance and likewise supported rejection of the Insurance Code and DTPA claims. Judge Ho filed a separate concurrence. Judge Oldham dissented, reasoning that the undefined term “reality show” was ambiguous, should be construed in the insured’s favor under Texas law, and could be considered as a legal argument supporting Megalomedia’s preserved contract claim.
Key Takeaways
- A party generally forfeits a distinct ground for opposing summary judgment when it fails to present that ground to the district court.
- The majority declined to decide what qualifies as a “reality show”; its coverage ruling rested on forfeiture, not a merits interpretation of that term.
- Evidence that Megalomedia knew of the exclusion and treated My 600-lb Life as reality television supported the finding that it could not justifiably rely on a contrary representation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of presenting every material policy-interpretation theory at summary judgment. An insured cannot assume that an appellate court will consider a new ambiguity argument, particularly when its position below treated the disputed classification as established.
The divided opinions also expose a broader disagreement over appellate party presentation: the majority treated Megalomedia’s new theory as forfeited, while Judge Oldham viewed it as a permissible legal argument supporting an already-preserved claim. The court nevertheless left unresolved the substantive meaning of “reality show” in the policy.