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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
