Assault & Battery Excluded Regardless of Who Is the Agressor

Assault or Battery Can Never be Fortuitous

By definition liability insurance can only indemnify an insured against a contingent or unknown event, an accident, injury that is fortuitous. By definition assault or battery are intentional acts, not accidental, and not fortuitous.

In Ronald P. Guste Husband Of/And Betty Anne Guste v. Earl Albert Lirette III, President Of/And Tiger Audio, L.L.C., And Earl Albert Lirette Jr., NO. 2017 CA 1248, State of Louisiana Court of Appeal First Circuit (June 4, 2018) coverage was refused and the insured and injured person sued the insurer seeking indemnity for injuries resulting from a battery because negligence was alleged in the suit.

FACTS

An altercation between Ronald P. Guste and Earl Albert Lirette III resulted in litigation at Lirette’s business, Tiger Audio, L.L.C. Guste and his wife, Betty Anne Guste, sued Lirette and Tiger Audio seek damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the incident. According to the suit Guste entered the customer showroom of Tiger Audio to speak with Lirette about wages owed to Guste’s grandson. As Guste approached Lirette, who was standing behind a counter, Earl Lirette, III, came from behind the counter and violently assaulted and battered Ronald Guste, throwing him to the ground, causing severe injuries to his mind and body, including but not limited to a fractured hip, which rendered Ronald Guste bed-ridden and a permanent injury.

Lirette and Tiger Audio filed a third-party demand against their general liability insurer, Montpelier U.S. Insurance Company, contending Montpelier’s policy covered the alleged liability of Lirette and Tiger Audio and obligated Montpelier to defend them in the litigation. Guste also amended his petition to assert a direct claim against Montpelier as the alleged liability insurer for Lirette and Tiger Audio.

Montpelier filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims against it, relying in relevant part on a policy exclusion applicable to bodily injury “arising out of assault and/or battery.” The trial court granted the motion.

DISCUSSION

The summary judgment procedure is favored and shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria governing the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate.

Insurance Coverage under Montpelier’s Policy

Summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of insurance coverage alone, although there is a genuine issue as to liability or damages.

Montpelier relies, in relevant part, on the following exclusion added to the policy by an endorsement:

ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXCLUSION; This policy does not apply to “bodily injury,” “personal injury” or “property damage” arising out of assault and/or battery or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts, including the failure to warn, train or supervise, whether caused by or at the instigation or direction of the Insured, his employees, patrons or any other person.”

In his trial testimony, Guste testified he went to Tiger Audio to talk to Lirette about why Guste’s grandson had not been paid for work performed at the store. After exchanging words, Guste turned and began walking to the exit when the following occurred: “I was walking out the door . . . and I stopped four or five feet from the door. And I told those two men that were in there, all I’m asking is why he didn’t pay my grandson. And [Lirette] came up to me before I knew it and threw me down.”

Lirette agreed an altercation occurred but claimed Guste was the aggressor. According to Lirette’s trial testimony, Guste was “fussing” about wages owed to Guste’s grandson, and Lirette repeatedly tried to get Guste to leave.  According to Lirette, Guste made a movement with his hand “like he was going to punch me,” and Lirette “deflected” it with his hands. Lirette felt “threatened” and believed Guste was about to hit him.

The uncontradicted evidence establishes Guste was injured during a physical altercation with Lirette. The only conflict in the evidence concerns who was the aggressor, Lirette or Guste. However, that factual issue is not material to the application of the exclusion, which applies to bodily injury “arising out of assault and/or battery . . . caused by or at the instigation or direction of the Insured, his employees, patrons or any other person.” (Emphasis added.)

The exclusion does not depend on the identity of the person who committed the assault or battery but extends to acts committed by any person.

The exclusion in this policy is clear. The insurance does not apply to bodily injury arising out of 1) assault and battery or 2) out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of an assault and battery. This is so regardless of who precipitated the incident, whether an employee or a customer or anyone else.

There is a difference between the versions of plaintiff and [the employee], but there is no issue of material fact. If plaintiff’s version is believed, his injuries arose out of an assault and battery perpetrated by [the employee]. If [the employee’s] version is believed, plaintiff’s injuries arose out of [the employee’s] attempt to prevent or suppress plaintiff’s assault and battery on him. In either case there is no insurance coverage.

Regardless of who was the aggressor, the evidence establishes Guste’s injuries arose out of either an assault or battery. That undisputed fact, alone, makes the subject exclusion applicable.

There is simply no coverage for the insured’s potential liability resulting from a battery, whatever the theory or theories of law the tort claimant advances in a potential action against the insured. To find otherwise defies logic.

ZALMA OPINION

The insurer who wishes to avoid the risk of loss by assault and/or battery can do so as long as its exclusion is clear, unambiguous and sufficiently broad to exclude any assault or battery by any person. This exclusion was sufficient and it did not matter who hit whom, who was the aggressor, and who was the victim. There is no coverage for defense or indemnity.


© 2018 – Barry Zalma

This article, and all of the blog posts on this site, digest and summarize cases published by courts of the various states and the United States.  The court decisions have been modified from the actual language of the court decisions, were condensed for ease of reading, and convey the opinions of the author regarding each case.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant  specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 50 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.

New Books From Full Court Press

Full Court Press continues to publish expert secondary content. This time it’s a new collection of ew insurance law treatises from consultant, expert witness, arbitrator, and mediator Barry Zalma.

Barry Zalma practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims-handling lawyer, and has spent more than 50 years in the insurance business. We welcome his deskbooks as the first published under our Full Court Press imprint. Three titles are available in ePub and MOBI format, as well as on the Fastcase legal research platform.

Insurance Law Deskbook: Learn the insurance basics that are essential to every civil practitioner.

California Insurance Law Deskbook: California has long led the way when it comes to insurance jurisprudence in the United States, and few know more about California insurance law than Barry Zalma.

Insurance Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Deskbook: Understand the relationship between insurance, the tort of bad faith, and why punitive damages are awarded to punish insurers.

An annual subscription to secondary content on the Fastcase platform includes new editions and updates published by the author as they are rolled out, so you can rest assured that your research is up to date. Go to fastcase.com for more detail and how to use the material on-line as part of your legal or insurance research or as stand-alone e-books.

Mr. Zalma’s books available as Kindle books or paperbacks at Amazon.com can be reached at http://zalma.com/zalma-books/

Mr. Zalma’s reports can be found on Tumbler at https://www.tumblr.com/search/bzalma  on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/barry.zalma and you can follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma

Legal Disclaimer:

The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.

 

 

 

Share

About Barry Zalma

An insurance coverage and claims handling author, consultant and expert witness with more than 48 years of practical and court room experience.
This entry was posted in Zalma on Insurance. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Assault & Battery Excluded Regardless of Who Is the Agressor

  1. Tony Verreos says:

    When an insured chooses to purchase coverage that excludes an Assault & Battery Exclusion, that usually happens because they are either unaware of the exclusion, or they may have asked their agent/broker to find them a lower cost policy than others available which do not contain such an exclusion.

    The lack of coverage in this case does not remove liability for damages, if the injured party files a civil case. Just no insurance to pay for any damages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.