Clear & Unambiguous Exclusion
Barry Zalma
Sep 13, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gHgSfdZ5 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtbfjQHT and at https://lnkd.in/gYPhurz4 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4600 posts.
The insurer sued seeking a declaratory judgment that it need not defend or indemnify defendant TFS NY against a personal injury lawsuit pending in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County.
In Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company v. TFS NY, INC. d/b/a Sugardaddy’s and Tywan Simmons, No. 22-CV-1915 (AMD) (SJB), United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 6, 2023) resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
The defendant owns and operates a nightclub. Between April 2019 and April 2020, the plaintiff insured the defendant under a Commercial General Liability insurance contract. Like any other insurance policy, this contract had exclusions. At issue in this case is the scope of a Sublimited Assault or Battery endorsement and a Third Party or Contracted Security exclusion-specifically, whether these provisions require the plaintiff to defend and indemnify the defendant against a lawsuit pending in New York state court.
The parties agreed that the insurance policy was in effect when the incident took place and that Mr. Simmons’s lawsuit triggers the plaintiff’s duty to defend under the Sublimited Assault or Battery endorsement, because the lawsuit includes negligence claims. They also agree that Castillo was “an outside security company” as defined by the insurance policy.
The policy provides, in part: “We have no duty to defend any insured against any claims or ‘suits’ seeking damages for ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’ … or ‘injury’ in regard to the matters covered by this exclusion (outside security services) and we have no duty to pay damages in regard to the matters covered by this exclusion”
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff argues that it has no duty to defend or indemnify against Mr. Simmons’s lawsuit, because it disclaimed liability over any “suit” “involving” “operations of any third party or contracted security services provider.” While the defendant agrees that the plaintiff is not liable for claims involving Castillo and does not have to indemnify the defendant for them, it nevertheless contends that the plaintiff must “defend the entire action” because the lawsuit includes claims against the defendant and its employees, who “are covered by [the] policy.”
Insurance Contracts Under New York Law
The duty to defend is contractual in nature. Accordingly, there is no duty to defend where the alleged basis for liability is not within the coverage of the policy.
The Plaintiff’s Duty to Defend
The defendant contends that the plaintiff owes a duty to defend because the exclusion is silent as to whether insurance would apply to separate and distinct claims of assault and battery that are made against the defendant and its employees. However, the plain language of the exclusion, which states repeatedly that it “does not apply to any . . . ‘suit’ . . . directly or indirectly based on, attributable to, arising out of, involving, resulting from or in any way related to the acts, omissions or operations of any third party or contracted security services provider.”
Mr. Simmons’s complaint alleges that he was “assaulted” and “sustain[ed] serious and severe injuries” “as a direct consequence and result of the acts of [all] the defendants.” Mr. Simmons’s “suit,” therefore, “involv[es]” a “contracted security services provider” and falls within the exclusion.
The complaint alleges that the altercation was the product of joint action of the defendant, its employees and Castillo, each of which is included in every cause of action. The plaintiff thus has no duty to defend.
Finally, even if there is no duty to defend on the facts alleged in Mr. Simmons’s complaint, there might still be a duty to indemnify the defendant if the state court dismisses the claims against Castillo or if the jury decides that the defendant’s employees were the only ones involved in Mr. Simmons’s assault. But at this time, the exclusion must be enforced, and the plaintiff has no duty to defend.
Duty to Indemnify
Developments in Mr. Simmons’s lawsuit may trigger a duty to indemnify. If that happens, the defendant may move to reopen the case. However, since the underlying suit is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted as there is no duty to defend. The defendant may move to reopen on the issue of indemnification if the state court determines that Castillo played no part in Mr. Simmons’s assault.
ZALMA OPINION
Clear and unambiguous language in an exclusion will always be enforced. Since the suit alleged that the security service was involved in his assault, battery and injury the exclusion applied and there was no duty to defend. Since little evidence exists for the USDC to rule upon it left open the possibility – slim – that there might be a duty to indemnify. A Solomon-like decision that will not require the death of a baby nor the defense of the security company.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf or at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g.
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gYq44VM
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
