Case Title: Gregory v. Western World Ins. Co., Inc.

Citation: 481 So. 2d 878

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
481 So. 2d 878 (1985)
Bobby GREGORY
v.
WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
84-822.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 13, 1985.
Gary W. Alverson and William R. Hovater, Tuscumbia, and Robert W. Bunch, Florence, for appellant.
Walter W. Bates of McDaniel, Hall, Parsons, Conerly & Lusk, Birmingham, for appellee.
BEATTY, Justice.
Appeal by defendant Bobby Gregory from a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Western World Insurance Company, Inc. (Western World), in plaintiff's action for a declaratory judgment. We affirm.
On August 30, 1982, Western World issued a policy of liability insurance to William E. Danley, Jr., and Glenn E. Kirk, d/b/a Big Daddy's Lounge. The policy was amended September 1, 1982, by the following endorsement:
On March 18, 1983, Gregory filed an action against Big Daddy's Lounge and others. His amended complaint contained five counts.
In Count One, he alleged that while he was at Big Daddy's Lounge, one of the co-defendants, Jerry Raines, "committed an assault and battery on the Plaintiff."
In Count Two, plaintiff alleged that assault and also alleged that other co-defendants, *879 Sandra Dowdy and Glenn Kirk, as agents and employees of Glenn Kirk and William Danley, Jr., at the time of the assault and battery, "negligently and wantonly maintained the premises known as Big Daddy's Lounge, so that it was not reasonably safe for members of the public" and that "as a proximate consequence of said wantonness or negligence, Plaintiff was caused to suffer the injuries heretofore described."
In Count Three, plaintiff realleged the facts of his earlier counts and also charged that the co-defendants, "Sandra Dowdy and Glenn Kirk, while employed as agents and employees of Glenn Kirk and William Danley, Jr., ... did sell, give, or otherwise dispose of to the Defendant Jerry Raines, contrary to the provisions of law, liquors or beverages, that caused the intoxication of Jerry Raines. As a consequence thereof, the Plaintiff was caused to suffer the injuries heretofore described."
In Count Four, plaintiff alleged that certain fictitious parties "A through HH, as set out in the caption of the Complaint, negligently and wantonly maintained the premises known as Big Daddy's Lounge, so that it was not reasonably safe for members of the public, including the plaintiff," and that "[a]s a proximate consequence of said wantonness or negligence, Plaintiff was caused to suffer injuries heretofore described."
In Count Five, plaintiff adopted the allegations of Count Three, and added:
Thereafter, Western World filed its action for a declaratory judgment, seeking a determination that its policy afforded no coverage to the insureds, or any obligation to defend the insureds in the aforementioned lawsuit. A copy of the insurance policy was attached to Western World's complaint. To this complaint, Bobby Gregory filed his answer, asserting certain defenses and praying that the trial court decree that coverage existed. Following a course of pleading, Western World moved for summary judgment based on the pleadings, the terms of the insurance policy, and an affidavit of Richard Parker, an independent insurance agent employed by the insurance agency which sold the policy to Danley and Kirk. This affidavit recited Danley's knowledge of the assault and battery exclusion. A stipulation of facts was also admitted, which stated in part:
Plaintiff's claim against the insured is based upon the Alabama dram shop statute, Code of 1975, § 6-5-71(a):
Additionally, plaintiff asserts that at the time of the incident in question the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board had in effect Rule 20-X-6-.02(4):
According to plaintiff, the insureds were acting contrary to law at the time of the incident, and that Western World's coverage for such an incident was provided by its liability policy. Plaintiff, moreover, contends that an ambiguity was created in the policy's terms by the assault and battery endorsement and that it must be resolved in favor of coverage.
The liability policy in question provides the following coverage:
The quoted coverage obviously extends to "dram shop" liability, subject to the stated exclusions. Exclusion (d) itself, excluding liability arising out of products or representation or warranty made with respect to products, specifically does not apply to liability imposed by dram shop law or regulation; consequently no ambiguity exists under Coverage X. To the contrary, the exclusion under (d)(1) and (2) preserves dram shop liability coverage.
Does the addition of the assault and battery exclusion lead to ambiguity in those terms? We think not.
Of course, insurance companies are entitled to have their policy contracts enforced as written, rather than risking their terms either to judicial interpretation or the use of straining language, and the fact that adverse parties contend for different constructions does not mean that the disputed language is ambiguous. Upton v. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 548 (Ala.1985).
The relevant exclusion explicitly states that "the insurance does not apply to bodily injury ... arising out of assault and battery ... whether caused by or at the instigation or direction of ... patrons or any other person."
That is, if the claimed injury arises out of an assault and battery caused by a patron, insurance coverage is excluded. Insofar as this exclusion is concerned, the company could have placed it in the policy with the other quoted exclusions under Coverage X, but it chose instead to place it under a "Combined Provisions Endorsement" along with other exclusions. The insureds themselves selected some of these exclusions and also eliminated some of them. The effect of the assault and battery exclusion, clear in itself, does no more than the other exclusions agreed to by the insured; limiting the company's coverage to those remaining instances of injury arising out of "the selling, serving or giving of any alcoholic beverage at or from the insured premises."
It is not disputed that the bodily injury in question here was injury "arising out of assault and battery." The exclusion, therefore, being applicable, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment for the plaintiff.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.