A Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. unit is not obligated to defend or indemnify an event planning company for a child’s injury on a “psycho swing” because the equipment was not listed on its policy’s equipment schedule, says a federal appeals court in upholding a lower court’s ruling.

In December 2011, “E.F” was injured while she was riding on a piece of recreational equipment called the “psycho swing” operated by Hollywood, Florida-based Celebration Source Inc., according to Monday’s ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in Steadfast Insurance Co. v. The Celebration Source Inc. et al. Celebration had borrowed the equipment from another vendor for the event, according to the ruling.

Robert and Terri Frank filed suit on behalf of themselves and their daughter against Celebration charging injuries from the equipment.

At the time of the incident, Celebration was covered under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Steadfast, which defended the company under a reservation of rights, according to the ruling.

Steadfast then filed suit in U.S. District Court in Miami seeking a declaration it had no duty to defend or indemnify Celebration in the underlying suit.

The District Court granted Steadfast summary judgment dismissing the case, which was affirmed by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel in Monday’s ruling.

The CGL policy included an equipment schedule that identifies each piece of equipment covered under the policy. Also included in the policy was a “newly acquired recreational apparatus endorsement” that said the insurer must be informed within 30 days of acquiring equipment to establish coverage under the policy.

“The plain language of the Policy provides unambiguously that no coverage exists for equipment not listed in the Equipment Schedule,” said the ruling.

Under the endorsement, coverage for newly acquired equipment applies only if Steadfast is notified within 30 days that it is seeking coverage, the ruling said.

It is undisputed the “psycho swing” was not listed in the schedule, and Celebration concedes it provided no notice to Steadfast within the 30-day period that it wanted coverage for the equipment, the ruling said.

“Because Celebration failed to satisfy the conditions set forth” in the endorsement for adding newly acquired equipment, no coverage existed under the policy for bodily injuries arising out of its ownership, maintenance or use, said the ruling.

“The allegations in the underlying state court lawsuit thus fall outside the Policy’s coverage,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court’s ruling that Steadfast had no duty to defend or indemnify Celebration.