Megalomedia Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. presented, on its face, an unusual issue of insurance coverage, which the panel majority declined to consider:

“What is a ‘reality show’?” It contends that, because the term has no set meaning in the television industry, no one knows for certain whether My 600-lb Life qualifies as one. So, Megalomedia argues the district court erred by not reading the exclusion against Philadelphia.

We decline to enter this debate. While it would be fun to plumb the nuances of the term “reality show”—and ponder, as Megalomedia bids us, whether Monday Night Football and Fox News are “reality shows”—this appeal presents no such question.

Why, you ask? Because Megalomedia makes this argument for the first time on appeal. Indeed, in the district court, Megalomedia took the opposite position: it told that court, over and over, that My 600-lb Life was, in fact, a “reality show.” Its argument was that the policy really did cover “reality shows” . . . like My 600-lb Life. Having lost that argument, Megalomedia cannot now pirouette 180 degrees on appeal and try a new one. That is the reality of forfeiture

A dissent proposed a narrower view of the underlying “party presentation” principle. No. 23-20570 (Sept. 15, 2026).