No Coverage for “Premises Liability” Claims Allegedly Arising from a Fight

A federal district court in Virginia has ruled that an assault or battery exclusion barred coverage for claims allegedly arising from a fight at a billiards tournament.  

The Case 

The plaintiff in this case filed a premises liability lawsuit against The Locker Room, LLC, alleging that he was injured in a fight that took place at a billiards tournament there and arguing that the Locker Room’s insurance policy covered his suit. The insurance carrier sought a declaration that the policy’s exclusion for assault or battery relieved it of any obligation to cover the plaintiff’s claims, and moved for summary judgment. 

The Court’s Decision 

The court granted the insurer’s motion. It explained that although the specific causes of action in the plaintiff’s complaint were not for assault or battery but were based on premises liability and breach of contract to keep the premises safe, all of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries arose from his allegedly being “struck on his head” and “stabbed/cut with a knife.” In the court’s view, these allegations fell within the exclusion’s definition of a battery, which was defined as the “negligent or wrongful physical contact with another without consent that results in physical or emotional injury.” 

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the exclusion extended only to claims in which a “bouncer” in a bar injured a patron in a bar or a similar scenario where a person for which the insured was legally responsible injured a patron, explaining that although the exclusion expressly provided that the policy did not cover claims for injuries resulting from assaults and batteries instigated by employees of the insured, that was “not the exclusion’s limit.” 

Moreover, the court found that the exclusion also applied to injuries arising out of an assault and battery caused by negligent hiring and training as well as to injuries arising out of an assault and battery caused by “any other negligent action,” which included negligence in maintaining a safe environment for invitees. 

The case is Day v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., No. 1:12cv669 (LMB/IDD) (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2013). 

The Rivkin Rule 

There are many other cases in which courts have denied coverage after finding that similar assault and battery exclusion language was not ambiguous. See, e.g., Coleman v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins. Co., 369 F. App’x 595 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that an insurance policy that “does not cover any claims arising out of Assault and Battery or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts, whether caused by or at the instigation or direction of you, your employees or volunteers, patrons or any other persons” did not cover a premises liability claim against nightclub owners when the decedent was shot as she tried to escape a fight that broke out); Essex Ins. Co. v. Stage 2, Inc., 14 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 1994) (holding that an insurance policy in which “claims, accusations, or charges of negligent hiring, placement, training or supervision arising from actual or alleged assault or battery are not covered” did not cover a suit alleging the breach of a duty of care for failing to protect someone from assault by other patrons); Downtown Norfolk Ent’t, Inc. v. Penn-Am. Ins. Co., 660 F. Supp. 2d 669 (E.D. Va. 2008) (holding that negligence claims brought by patron of insured nightclub who was shot and seriously wounded during a concert were not covered by insurance policy due to assault and battery exclusion).