Insurer’s Exclusion for Claims of Assault & Battery is Effective
Post 5250
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBzt2vw9, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gEBBE-e6 and at https://lnkd.in/gk7EcVn9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Bar Fight With Security is an Excluded Assault & Battery
In The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. Mainline Private Security, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 24-3871, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (December 16, 2025) two violent attacks occurred in Philadelphia involving young men, Eric Pope (who died) and Rishabh Abhyankar (who suffered catastrophic injuries). Both incidents involved security guards provided by Mainline Private Security, LLC (“Mainline”) at local bars. The estates of the victims sued the attackers, the bars, and Mainline for negligence and assault/battery. The insurer exhausted a special limit and then denied defense or indemnity to Mainline Private Security.
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mainline had purchased a commercial general liability policy from The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company (“CSU”), which included a specific exclusion limiting coverage for claims arising out of assault and battery to $250,000. This coverage was exhausted, and CSU sought a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Mainline or an additional insured (Mikey II) for the lawsuits.
Claims:
The lawsuits against Mainline and the bars were based on both negligence and assault/battery. CSU argued that all claims fell within the assault and battery exclusion of the policy.
LEGAL ANALYSIS\
Policy Exclusion:
The key legal issue was whether the negligence claims in the underlying lawsuits were covered by the assault and battery exclusion in CSU’s policy. The exclusion was broad, covering not only direct assault and battery but also failures to prevent such acts, failures to provide adequate security, and negligent hiring, supervision, or training of employees involved in assault/battery, all of which were within the ambit of the exclusion.
Pennsylvania Law:
The court applied Pennsylvania law, which interprets insurance contracts according to their plain meaning and enforces clear and unambiguous language. The court found the exclusion language to be clear, unambiguous and comprehensive.
Causation Standard:
Under Pennsylvania law, “arising out of” in policy exclusions is interpreted as “but for” causation—if the injury would not have occurred but for the assault/battery, the exclusion applies.
Negligence Claims:
The court reviewed the specific negligence allegations and found that all were causally linked to the assault and battery incidents. The exclusion covered not only intentional acts but also related negligence, such as failure to provide adequate security or properly train staff.
CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT
Summary Judgment:
The court granted summary judgment in favor of CSU, holding that all claims in the Pope and Abhyankar lawsuits fell within the assault and battery exclusion. Since the $250,000 coverage limit had been exhausted, CSU had no further duty to defend or indemnify Mainline or Mikey II.
Illusory Coverage Argument:
The court rejected this, noting that CSU was not required by law to offer the coverage and that the policy did provide coverage in other circumstances.
IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS
Assault and battery exclusions in liability policies can encompass related negligence claims if the injuries are causally connected to assault/battery. Courts will enforce clear and unambiguous exclusion language under Pennsylvania law. Once the specified coverage limit for excluded claims is exhausted, the insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify ends.
Because all the claims in the Pope and Abhyankar lawsuits are covered by CSU’s assault and battery exclusion, CSU’s duty to defend and indemnify Mainline and Mikey II is limited to the $250,000 supplemental coverage. And because this $250,000 has been fully eroded through the payment of defense costs and settlements from other claims CSU has no duty to defend or indemnify Mainline or Mikey II for the Pope and Abhyankar lawsuits.
The $250,000 limit in coverage for these claims has been exhausted, and therefore CSU is not obligated to defend or indemnify Mainline or Mikey II in the Pope and Abhyankar lawsuits.
ZALMA OPINION
Since the first liability insurance policy was written – perhaps in clay tablets in ancient Sumeria, insurers limited the limits of the insurance to fortuitous acts, accidents. Assault and Battery causing injury are always, by definition, intentional acts. To avoid argument insurers wrote into their policies clear and unambiguous assault and battery exclusions, as did CSU. CSU provided an extra coverage agreeing to insure against claims of Assault and Battery up to $250,000 of expense and indemnity payments. Once the $250,000 was exhausted coverage stopped and the insureds are left to defend themselves and pay any judgments from their own assets.
(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. uranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
