On June 13, 2009, Sage McGirk participated in a group skydive offered by Skydive Factory. Robert Mehl, an agent of Skydive Factory, piloted the airplane carrying the group, which took off from the Orange County Airport in Virginia. After the jumpers exited the plane, Mehl turned and made a low pass over the landing area at which time the aircraft struck McGirk’s parachute in mid-air. McGirk fell to the ground and suffered serious injuries. At the time of the accident, Skydive Factory had an aircraft hull and liability insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s. The policy insured Skydive Factory against liability and property damage arising from Skydive Factory’s use of particular aircraft, including the aircraft operated on the day of the accident. The policy excluded from coverage “liability to and of jumpers after descending from aircraft and whilst attempting to exit the aircraft.” McGirk filed a lawsuit requesting a judgment declaring that Lloyd’s was obligated to defend and indemnify Mehl and was liable for damages. McGirk argued that he was struck while descending from the aircraft rather than after descending from the aircraft. He also contended that the exclusion was inoperative as it was set forth in an endorsement rather than in the section of the policy containing the subheading “Exclusions.” McGirk also argued that the exclusion was not enforceable as some of the terms, such as “jumpers,” were undefined. Are the terms of the exclusion ambiguous as to merit a construction favorable to the insured and against the insurer, or are the terms unambiguous and thus effective even if they are detrimental to the insured?