The production company behind "My 600-lb Life" spent years telling courts its show was reality television, only to face those claims on appeal later. 

The Fifth Circuit on September 14 ruled in favor of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, affirming that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify Megalomedia against lawsuits filed by former show participants. The court also rejected the production company's fraud and Texas insurance law claims. 

Megalomedia, based in Austin, had carried coverage through Philadelphia since 2010. The policy covered general liability, property, auto, and inland marine risks. In 2011, Philadelphia added an exclusion to the bodily injury coverage carving out "any/all reality shows." Megalomedia never objected, and the exclusion stayed. 

Fast forward to 2020. Former participants and their families sued Megalomedia in Texas state court, alleging the production caused them injuries. Philadelphia refused to step in, pointing to the exclusion. 

In the district court, Megalomedia had freely called the show a "reality-TV show." Its argument was that the exclusion's wording actually exempted reality programming from the coverage limitation - not that the show fell outside the term. The district court rejected that reading as contrary to the clause's plain meaning. 

On appeal, Megalomedia flipped its position entirely. It argued "reality show" was vague, had no fixed industry definition, and that "My 600-lb Life" might not even qualify. The Fifth Circuit was unpersuaded. 

The fraud claims fared no better. Trial evidence showed Megalomedia had consistently treated its reality programming as excluded from coverage. When Philadelphia asked the company to strip reality-show costs from its premium estimates, Megalomedia subtracted "My 600-lb Life"'s production budget three years running. It also bought separate coverage for reality shows from other carriers, telling those insurers the program qualified. 

With all of that on the record, the court found no error in the trial court's conclusion that Megalomedia could not have relied on any suggestion the show was covered. 

For claims teams and coverage professionals, the case is a sharp reminder: how a policyholder describes its own operations during the coverage relationship can become the strongest evidence against it when an exclusion is later disputed. 

The underlying participant injury claims are separate proceedings and remain unresolved. This is a slip opinion; rehearing or further appellate review remains possible.