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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
