United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1478 ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAILEY WATSON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Nos. 3:21-cv-00415, 3:21-cv-01259 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 2023 — DECIDED MARCH 11, 2024 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Bailey Watson was struck and seriously in- jured by a truck with an attached woodchipper. She then brought an action against the driver, James Hodge, in Illinois state court. Her complaint set forth claims of negligence against Hodge and of vicarious liability against his company, Riverbend Tree Service (“Riverbend”), a tree removal and trimming business. Hodge’s insurer, Atain Specialty 2 No. 23-1478 Insurance Company (“Atain”), then filed a complaint for de- claratory judgment in federal district court, seeking a declara- tion that it had no obligation to defend or to indemnify Hodge. After obtaining a default judgment against Hodge in state court, Ms. Watson filed a garnishment action against Atain, which Atain removed to federal court. The district court con- solidated the two actions, and later granted Atain the re- quested declaration, dismissed Ms. Watson’s garnishment ac- tion, and entered judgment accordingly. We agree that the ac- cident is excluded from coverage under both of Hodge’s in- surance policies, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. I BACKGROUND In August 2020, Ms. Watson was severely injured by Hodge’s truck with an attached woodchipper. According to Ms. Watson, when the accident occurred, “Hodge was driv- ing his 1986 Ford F-150 truck with woodchipper attached” and “was in the process of leaving [his] property . . . to dump a load of tree limbs, tree trunks and other tree removal by- 1 product due to his work efforts.” Ms. Watson “was a pedes- trian walking near [Hodge’s] vehicle when [his] truck and/or wood chipper struck her, knocked her to the ground, and 2 traversed over her body.” Ms. Watson filed suit against Hodge in Illinois state court.

1 R.1-1 at 2. 2 Id. No. 23-1478 3

At the time of the accident, Hodge, doing business as Riverbend, held two insurance policies with Atain: an errors and omissions policy and a commercial general liability pol- icy. Hodge’s errors and omissions policy excluded coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the use of an “auto,” which the policy defined as “a land motor vehicle . . . designated for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or 3 equipment.” His commercial general liability policy also ex- cluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the use of any auto. But unlike the errors and omissions policy, the commer- cial general liability policy contained an operation “excep- tion” to the auto “exclusion.” That operation exception pro- vided coverage for bodily injury arising out of “[t]he opera- tion of machinery or equipment that was attached to, or part of, a land vehicle that would qualify under the definition of ‘mobile equipment’ if it were not subject to a compulsory or financial responsibility law or other motor vehicle insurance 4 law where it is licensed or principally garaged.” In its action for declaratory relief in federal court, Ata