Insured Refused to Pay Additional Premium for Assault & Battery Coverage
Post 5225
See the video at https://lnkd.in/g-h_eWr6 and at https://lnkd.in/gtcRKMiW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Exclusion for Assault & Battery Enforced
In Golden Bear Insurance Company v. The Levee Bar & Grill, LLC et al., No. 4:24-CV-00764-DGK (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2025) the bar was sued because of an assault and battery by an intoxicated patron and sought defense and indemnity from its insurer. Golden Bear (GB) denied the claim because of an assault and battery exclusion in its policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Underlying Incident and Lawsuit:
On or about an unspecified date in 2024, Defendant Adrian Hubbard (“Hubbard”), a patron at The Levee, became intoxicated after being overserved alcohol. He was removed from the bar without incident but later engaged in a brief altercation outside, bumping a female security guard. An unknown employee of The Levee (“John Doe”), perceiving a threat to himself or the guard, struck Hubbard in the head, causing him to fall and strike his head on the pavement, resulting in injuries.
Underlying Claims:
Hubbard filed suit against The Levee and John Doe in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court on May 20, 2024 (initial petition), alleging negligent overservice of alcohol and removal. An amended petition filed October 3, 2024, added claims of: (1) negligent supervision/training of John Doe (who allegedly had a proclivity for excessive force, which The Levee condoned); and (2) negligence in John Doe’s use of unreasonable force while acting within the scope of employment.
Coverage Denial:
The Levee tendered the claim to GB Insurance on June 26, 2024, and again after the amendment. GB Insurance denied coverage both times, citing the Exclusion.
Insurance Policy:
Plaintiff Golden Bear Insurance Company (“GB Insurance”) issued a Commercial General Liability policy to Defendant The Levee Bar & Grill, LLC (“The Levee”) for the period January 18, 2023, to January 18, 2024. The policy includes an “Assault and Battery Exclusion” (the “Exclusion”) that bars coverage for bodily injury arising from enumerated acts, allegations, or causes of action, including assault and battery. It contains a “Separation of Insureds” provision, treating coverage for each insured separately as if they were the sole insured.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
GB filed this federal declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify The Levee in the underlying lawsuit due to the Exclusion. The court stayed the underlying action pending resolution.
GB Insurance moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
1 Does the Exclusion preclude coverage for the underlying claims?
2 Is the Exclusion void as against Missouri public policy, which favors self-defense?
ANALYSIS
To succeed on a motion to dismiss the movant must show no material factual issues remain and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Applicability of Exclusion:
Defendants did not contest GB Insurance’s argument that the Exclusion bars coverage for the underlying tort claims (negligent supervision/training and negligence arising from the alleged assault). This constitutes waiver.
Exclusion Not Void Against Public Policy:
Defendants argued the Exclusion violates Missouri’s policy favoring self-defense (citing a carve-out for “reasonable force to protect persons or property”), entitling coverage for John Doe’s alleged defensive act. The court rejected this as “borderline frivolous,” unsupported by caselaw.
Distinction Between Defenses and Coverage:
Self-defense is a valid criminal/civil defense insulating from liability, but it does not mandate insurance coverage for intentional/excluded conduct. These are separate issues.
Contract Interpretation:
Missouri courts will not rewrite policies to create unagreed coverage. The Levee could have purchased optional assault/battery coverage (at extra premium) but did not. Enforcing the Exclusion upholds freedom of contract and is not against public policy.
HOLDING
The motion was granted. GB Insurance had no duty to defend or indemnify The Levee (or any insured) in the underlying lawsuit because the Exclusion applies without material factual dispute. The Exclusion is enforceable.
CONCLUSION
The court declared the Exclusion applies, absolving GB Insurance of defense/indemnity duties.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance policies limit the risks that the insurer is willing to take. When insuring a bar insurers are usually concerned with the liability of the bar for injuries to third parties due to the intoxication of patrons and the actions of staff to quell disputes between intoxicated persons. GB offered the insured coverage for assault and battery at a higher premium which the insured rejected and opted for the policy with the exclusion and took their chances. When sued the bar attempted to change the policy wording to obtain coverage for which they did not pay a premium only to find itself responsible individually for the costs of defense and indemnity.
(c) 2025 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 my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
