A Georgia appeals court clarified who shoulders liability and indemnity when a security guard is shot during a film shoot, spotlighting insurance contract gaps.
In late 2019, Reel Security Corporation of Georgia contracted to provide unarmed security for Swap Meat Films, Inc. during the filming of the horror movie “Freaky.” On Nov. 1, 2019, security employee Tomesha Brown was shot while responding to a call at a bowling alley where the crew was working. Brown’s injuries led to a workers’ compensation claim against Reel Security, which was settled for over $1 million.
Brown also filed a premises liability suit against the bowling alley, later adding Swap Meat, Divide & Conquer, LLC, and Blumhouse Productions, LLC as defendants. The production companies then requested indemnification and insurance coverage from Reel Security under their service agreement. Reel Security’s insurer denied coverage, arguing the contract did not require Reel Security to defend or indemnify the production companies for their own alleged negligence, and that Brown’s claims did not allege negligence by Reel Security.
The trial court found that Reel Security breached the agreement by failing to indemnify Swap Meat, but also determined that Reel Security had obtained the required insurance coverage. The court ruled that Divide & Conquer and Blumhouse were not covered by the indemnity provision and set the matter for trial on damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court held that Reel Security’s contract required it to indemnify Swap Meat for claims arising out of the performance of security services, even if Swap Meat was alleged to be negligent, provided the negligence was passive and not active. The court also found that Reel Security had obtained the required commercial general liability insurance and named Swap Meat as an additional insured, regardless of the insurer’s later denial of coverage.
The appellate court further determined that Blumhouse, as a parent company of Swap Meat, was entitled to indemnification. The status of Divide & Conquer as an “affiliated company” was less clear, and the court ruled there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Divide & Conquer was entitled to indemnification, reversing summary judgment on that point.
This decision, dated Sept. 22, 2025, does not set precedent. However, it highlights the importance of clear indemnity and insurance provisions in service contracts, especially where multiple parties and significant liabilities are involved.
