Assault and Battery Exclusion Bars Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Tavern Fight

The assault and battery exclusion in a tavern’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy excluded coverage for claims asserted by a person allegedly injured in a fight at the tavern, a federal district court has ruled.   

The Case 

A person allegedly injured in a fight at TJ Coffey’s, a tavern located in Buffalo, New York, sued the tavern, which tendered the action to Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co., its commercial general liability insurer. Atlantic disclaimed coverage, asserting that the policy did not provide coverage for injuries arising in whole or in part out of an “actual or threatened assault or battery.” 

Atlantic asked a federal district court to declare that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Coffey in the underlying state court action. Among other things, Coffey argued that Atlantic had unilaterally changed the terms of the assault and battery exclusion over the years to broaden its scope and asked the court to reform the policy. Atlantic contended that the changes made to the assault and battery exclusion did not reduce Coffey’s coverage. The parties moved for summary judgment. 

The Court’s Decision 

The court granted summary judgment for Atlantic. It explained that the clause Atlantic relied on to disclaim coverage – paragraph 1.(a) of the assault and/or battery exclusion, which excluded coverage for “actual or threatened assault or battery whether caused by or at the instigation or direction of any insured, his employees, patrons or any other person” – had not changed from the initial policy and excluded claims that arose, in whole or in part, from an assault and/or battery.

Finding no justification for Coffey’s request for reformation of the policy, the court denied his motion for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment in favor of Atlantic.

The case is Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coffey, No. 11-CV-170S (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2013).