A tree-care insurer is fighting to walk away from a fallen worker's injury claim - and it's pointing straight at the fine print.
West Bend Insurance Company has asked a federal court to declare it owes nothing to one of its own policyholders. On June 9, 2026, the insurer filed a complaint for declaratory judgment - a request for a judge to settle the parties' rights before anyone pays out - in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The policyholder is Trees R Us, Inc., a tree-removal company. According to the complaint, West Bend issued Trees a commercial lines policy, number A091082 08, running from November 15, 2022 to November 15, 2023.
The dispute starts with an injured worker. The filing says Michael Ray O'Dell sued Trees and two of its officers, Jenni Willis and Nick Willis, in Sarasota County, Florida. The complaint states O'Dell alleges he "was injured when he fell while performing tree removal work for Trees on a storm-related job in Florida" on January 14, 2023.
West Bend agreed to defend Trees and the two officers in that suit - but only "subject to a reservation of rights to deny coverage and rescind the insurance policy," according to the complaint. In plain terms: the insurer is paying the legal bills now while reserving the right to claw them back.
For claims professionals, the interest is in how the exclusions stack. The complaint runs through layered exclusions across four coverage parts.
West Bend argues no coverage applies under its Commercial General Liability coverage, its Tree Care Professional Liability Coverage endorsement, its Business Auto coverage, or its Commercial Liability Umbrella coverage. The same exclusions appear in each - expected-or-intended injury, workers' compensation, and employer's liability.
The employer's liability exclusion, as quoted in the filing, bars coverage for "bodily injury" to "an 'employee' of the insured arising out of and in the course of" employment. The workers' compensation exclusion knocks out "any obligation of the insured under a workers' compensation, disability benefits or unemployment compensation law or any similar law." The complaint notes O'Dell filed a workers compensation claim against Trees "as an employee of Trees under Fla. Stat. § 440.10."
Then there is the specialty tool. The policy carries an "EXCLUSION - DESIGNATED OPERATIONS" endorsement that, per the complaint, cuts coverage for "bodily injury" arising out of "Any and All Line Clearing and Disconnection of Power, other than for Metra Contract #B70402." The underlying suit alleges Trees does "utility line clearance and other storm-related work."
West Bend's second move is rescission - it asks the court to void the policy as if it never existed. The complaint alleges Trees represented during the application and renewal process "that the scope of its operations was limited to Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana," when those operations actually "included operations throughout the United States in states such as Florida, Texas, and Louisiana." The filing alleges that misrepresentation was material and "made with intent to deceive." West Bend seeks rescission under 215 ILCS 5/154 and says it "stands ready to return the premiums paid for the policy should the policy be rescinded."
The insurer also wants its defense money back, seeking recoupment of "all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the Underlying Lawsuit" under common law and the policy's Defense Costs endorsement (IL 01 62 10 13).
O'Dell is named in West Bend's case as well, but the insurer seeks nothing from him - the complaint says he is included only so he will "be bound by the Court's ultimate decree."
None of these allegations has been tested in court. The defendants have not yet responded, and no judge has ruled on whether the exclusions apply or whether the policy can be voided.
