### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON MA Y 17, 200 4 S es sio n ST. PA UL REIN SU RA NC E C O., LTD . v. RO BER T WILLIA MS and SHE RROD JACKS ON, In di vi dua ll y a nd d/ b/ a PURE PASSI ON; PURE

PA SSION , IN C. and EU GEN E P UGH
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-02-0038- I Walter L. Evans, Chan cellor

No. W2003-00473-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Augu st 25, 2004

This case arises from eve nts surrounding the shooting de ath of De cede nt, Appellant’s son. Appe llee filed a motion for summary judgme nt claiming its policy of insuranc e did n o t apply to the circ umstances of

this case be cause Appellant’s c laim w as specific ally excluded from the insura nce policy . The trial c ourt g rante d Appellee ’s motion for summary judgme nt and, for the following re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed
A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Ron W . McAfe e, Memphis, TN, for Appellant
Gary H. Nichols, Jeffre y

L . L ay , Dy ersbur g , TN, for Appellee
OP IN ION
F acts and P roce dural Hi story
On Au g us t 19 , 2 00 0, Rod ne y Pug h (“Pu gh” or

“ De c e de nt” ) w a s a

patr on a t a

nig htc lub in Shelby County , Tenne ssee, na med Pure Passion. Pugh beca me involved in an alter cation with other un kn ow n pa tr on s o f P ur e Pa ssi on . O ne of tho se ind ivi du a ls h a d a

fi re arm a ndsh ot P ug h mu lti ple times in the abdomen. Pug h died as a result of the g unshot wounds. Subsequently , on Aug ust 16, 2001, Euge ne Pug h (“A ppel l an t ”), Dece dent’s father, filed a complaint, seeking compen s at o ryand punitive damag es, ag ainst Robert Wil liams and Sherrod-2-

J ackson individually

and d/b/a the Pure Passion Cl ub. On J an u ar y 7 , 2 0 02, St. P aul Reinsuranc e Company (“A ppellee” ) filed a

compl ai n t for a

decla ratory judgme nt, seeking a dec ree that the commerc ial g ener al liabilitypolicy issued to Pure Passion ( “insuranc e policy ”) e x cluded the nature of Appe llant’s claim from c overa g e and that Appellee ha d no duty to defe nd or indemni fy

Pure Passion.
The insura nce policy

betwee n Appellee , as insurer , and Pure Passion, as insured, with an e ff e c tiv e pe ri odof

c ov e ra g e fr om A ug us t 3, 20 00 , to Au g us t 3, 20 01 , p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art :
Section I - Covera g es
Cov e ra g e A. B od ily

I nju ry An d Pr op e rt y

Da ma g e L ia

bil ity 1. I ns uring Ag re e me nt. a. We will pay

those su m s t h at t h e ins ured be comes leg ally obligated to pay

as da ma g e s b e c a us e of

bo dil y inj ury

or pr op e rt y da ma g e to w hic h th is i ns ur a nc e app lie s. We will have the rig ht and dut y to defe nd any suit seeking those damag es. We may at our discretion investigate any “occ urre nce[”] and settl e any claim or suit that may re su lt.

... c. Da mag es bec ause of

bodily injury include dama g es cla imed by any person or or g a nizatio n f

or c are , lo ss o f s e rv ic e s or de a th re su lti ng a t any tim e fr om the bo dil y i n j u r y.
Un d ert h e i n s u ra n ce p o l i cy ’s l i s to f e x cl u s i o n s , i ts t at es t h e f o l l o wi n g:
Ex clusion - Assault and B attery / Neg lige nt Hiring Notwithstanding a n y t h ing c ontained her ein to the contra ry , it is understood and ag ree d that this poli cy

excludes claims arising out of;
1. Assault and B attery , whether cause d by or at the instructions of , or at the direc tion of or ne g lige nce of the insured, his e mploy ees, patrons or any cause s whatsoeve r and
2. Al legat io ns of

ne g lig e nt a c t or

omi ssi on by

or on be ha lf

of the I ns ur e d in connec tion with hiring , rete ntion or control of e mploy ees, supe rvision or preve ntion o r s u p p r e s s i o n o f

s u c h a s s a u l ta n d b a t t e r y.
F ina lly , th e ins ur a nc e po lic y e xclu de s c ov e ra g e fo r p un iti ve or e xemp lary

da ma g e s:
E x cl u s i o n - P u n i t i v e O r E x em p l ar y Da m age-3-

The following exclusion i s added to Cover ag es A, B , and C (Section I ):
This insurance does not apply to a claim of or

in d em n i fi cation for

punitive or e xemp lary da ma g e s. I f a sui t sha ll ha ve be e n bro ug ht ag a ins t y ou fo r a c la im w ith in the cove rag e provided under the policy , seeking both compensatory and punitive or exemplary

damag es, then we will affor d a def ence for such action. We shall not have an oblig ation to pay

for a ny costs, i ntere st, or damag es attributable to punitive or e xemp lary

da ma g e s. Appellee fi l ed a motion for summary judgme nt, an amende d motion for summary judgme nt, a memorandum in support of suc h m o tion, and a stateme nt of undisputed fac ts. After a hearing on September 6, 2002, the trial court found that the insurance policy does not pr ovide cove rag e for the subject matter of

Appell an t ’s l awsuit. Ther efor e, the tria l court g rante d Appellee ’s motion for su mma ry jud g me nt. Af

te r the tr ia l c ou rt de nie d App e llant’ s mo tio n to a lte r o r ame ndthe jud g me nt, Appellant filed a n appea l with this Court and prese nts the following issue for our re view: whethe r the insuranc e policy

provides cove rag e pursua nt to the “co n curr ent causation doctrine” for the sh oo tin g de a th o f R od ne y Pug h. F or the fo llo wi ng re a so ns , we a ff ir m the de c isi on of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Stand ard of Review This Court has previously articulated the standa

rd by which we must review this issue on app e a l:
We do not f ind a materia l f

actua l dispute. Q uestions involving an insura nce policy ’s cove rag e and an ins u re r’s dutyto defe nd require the interpre tation of the insurance policy

in light of c laims a sserted ag ainst the insured. Sta nd ar d F ire In s. Co. v. Chester-O’ Donley & A s soc., Inc

. , 972 S.W .2d 1 (Tenn. A pp. 1998). The issues relating to the scope of cover ag e and an insurer’ s dut y t o d ef end pre sent questions of law whic h can be resolv ed b ysummary judgme nt when the r eleva nt fac ts are not in dispute. Id . at 5-6. Summary judgme nt m ay b e gra n t ed onlywhen the re are no g e nu ine ma te ri a l f a c tua l di sp ute s w ith re g ardto the c laim or the de fe ns e a sse rt e d in themot ion , a ndwh e n th e mov ing pa rt y is e nti tle [d] to a

jud g me nt a s a ma tte r o f law. Ten n. R. Civ . P. 56 .0 3; By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993).
Planet Rock

, Inc. v . Regis Ins. Co. , 6 S.W .3d 484, 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Law a nd A nal ys is Appellant arg ues that Appe l l ee s h o u l d n o th av e b ee n gra n t ed s u m m ar y j u d gm en tev en t h o u gh the insuranc e policy

contains an a ssault and battery exclusion. Specifica lly , Appellant arg ues that a “c oncurr ent cause,” the neg lige nce of Pure Passion’s employ ee s i n m ai ntaining a secur e environment, c ontributed to the Dec edent’ s death.-4-

The “ concur

rent c ausation doctrine ” wa s first reco gnized by this Court i n the unpublished decision Almany v . Nationw ide Insurance Company , No. 85-341-I I , 1987 Tenn. App. L EXI S 2460, a t *2 3- 25 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . Jan ua ry 29 , 1 98 7) . Su c h d oc tr ine pr ov ide s th a t “ c ov e ra g e un de r a lia bil ity po lic y is e qu a lly a va ila ble to an in su re d w he ne ve r an insu re d ris k c on sti tut e s a c on c ur re nt p ro xima te cause of the injury .” A lm any , 1987 Tenn. App. L EXI S, at *24. Concurre nt causation was rec og nized a nd approve d by the Tenne ssee Supre me Court in Al lst ate In su ra nc e Com

pa ny v . W att s , 8 1 1 S. W. 2 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 7 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 1 ) ( h o ld in g “ th e r e s h o u ld b e c o v e r a g e in a s itu a ti o n . . . wher e a nonexcluded cause is a subst an t i al fac tor in producing the damag e or injury , even thoug h an e xclu de d c a us e ma y

ha ve c on tr ibu te d in so me fo rm to the ult imate re su lt a nd , sta nd ing a lon e , w ou ld have pr operly

invoked the exclusion contained in the policy .”).
I n W att s , Dewe y Crafton, the insured, was assisting J oseph Cole in replac ing the brake shoes o n Co le ’ s tr

u c k in Cr a fton’s g ara g e. W att s , 8 11 S.W. 2da t 88 4. Cr a ft on a ndCol e ha d d if fi c ult y removing the lug nuts from one of the truck’s w heels. Id . B ob by Watts, a fri end of

Cr a ft on ’s , c oin c ide nta lly

sto pp e d b y Cr a ft on ’s ho me a ndof fe re d to us e a

we ldi ng tor c h h e ha d in his ve hic le to remove the l ug nuts. Id . Be fore using the welding torch, Watts inquired whethe r there wer e any flammable materials present in the gar ag e to which C raf ton responded in the ne g ative. Id . When Watts could not remove the l ug nuts with the t orch, Crafton asked Watts to cut the bolt off with the torch. Id . Watts d i d s o and, as the bolt was being cut, sparks sc attere d over the g ara g e floor and ignited a pan of flammable liquid under the truck. Id . at 884-85. Cra fton picked up the pan, wa lked to the open g ara g e door, but dropped the pan due to the heat and inadvertently kicked it. Id . at 885. As a re sult, flammable liquid splashed onto Watts , causing burns. Id

. Crafton’s homeowner insurance policy with A llstate I nsuranc e Company provi d ed t hat “[Allstate does] not cover bodily i n j u ry or prope rty

damag e arising out of the ow nership, maintenanc e, use, oc cupanc y
. . . loading or unl oading of any motoriz ed land ve hicle or trailer.” Id

. at 884. Allstate ar g ued that the insura nce p o l i cy did not cover the injury to Watts beca

use the ci rc u m s t an ce s s u rr o u n d i n g W at t s ’ i n j u ryi n v o l v ed t h e ma i n t en an ce o f C o l e’ s tru ckan d t h e l an gu age “arising out of” was suff iciently broad t o m ean any

causa l relationship, relying on the “chain of events” theory

of application. Id

. at 885, 887. The court rec og nized that the use of the we lding torc h to perform maintenance on Cole’s truck wa s an excluded risk under the policy

. Id . at 888. Howe ver, the court determined that o t h er causes–the place ment of the pa n of flammable substance on the g ara g e floor, Cra fton’s fa ilure to warn Watts of t h e p re s ence of the f lammable substance , and Cr af t o n ’s neg lige nce in dr opping and kicking the burning substance–w ere not excluded by the insurance policy , and, there fore , Allstate should pr ovide insurance cover ag e when these other c ausal fac tors “play ed a substantial r ole in producing the loss complained o f by Watts.” Id . (citing Tr a v e le r s I n s
. Co

. v
. A e tn a Ca s
. & Sur. Co. , 491 S.W .2d 363, 367 (Tenn. 1973) ). Ther efor e, the court found in f

avor of Watts and h el d t hat “a n insuror should not be excused fr om its obl igation under a homeowner ’s policy unless it ha s been determined that the loss be ing complained of did not result in substantial part fr om a risk for w hich i t provided covera g e and collecte d a pre mium.” Id

. at 888.-5-

T h is Co u r t late r a d d r e s s e d “ c o n c u rr e n t c a u s a ti o n ” in Planet Rock , Inc. v . Regis Insurance Company . I n Planet Rock , Cr a ig Willi a ms, a patr on of

Plane t Rock, had an a lte rc a tio n w ith Be njamin Blac kwell, another patron of the club. Planet Rock , Inc. v . Regis Ins. Co. , 6 S.W .3d 484, 485 (Tenn. C t

. Ap p
. 1 9 99). Afte r taking the ar g ument outside, Wi lliams and Blac kwell beg an fi gh t i n g an d W i l l i am s wa s k n o ck ed u n co nscious. Id . Planet Rock employ ees br oug ht Wi lliams back in to th e c lu b a n d p u t h im o n a c o u c h in o n e o f th e c lu b ’ s o f f ic e s. Id

. W h en Planet Rock’s employ ees c hecke d on Wil liams some time later, he h ad d i ed from his inj uries. Id . Wil lia ms’ pare nts sued Planet Rock, see k i n g damag es under a theory of wrong ful death. Id . at 485-86. Spe c if ic a lly , th e pa

re nts a lle g e d th a t Pla ne t Ro c k u nd e rt oo k th e me dic a l c are of Willi a ms i n a

g ro ssl y neg lige nt manner. Id . at 486.
Planet Rock held an insura nce policy with Reg is I nsuranc e Company . When Reg is denied Planet Rock cove rag e pursua nt to an assault and battery exclusion and Williams’ parents re ceive d a jud g me nt i n th e ir

fa vo r a g a ins t Pla ne t Ro c k, P lan et Ro ck, fo r the us e a ndbe ne fi t of Willi a ms’ pare nts, filed a lawsuit ag ainst Reg is. Id . at 486-88. I n the insuranc e policy with Reg is, the policy pr ov ide d th a t:
Ac tio ns a nd pr oc e e din g s to r e c ov e r d a ma g e s f or bo dil y inj urie s o r p ro pe rt y damag e arising fr om the following are ex cl u d ed from cover ag e . . . [a]ssault and [b] attery or any act or omission in connec tion with the pr evention or suppr ession of such a ct s [ an d ] [h] armful or offe nsive contac t betwee n two or among two or more persons . . . .
Id . at 488. I n Planet Rock , this Court affirmed the or der of t h e t ri al co urt g ranting summary judgme nt to P l an et R o ck , I nc., which f ound that the neg lige nt act of f ailing to make available the appropriate medica l car e was cover ed, not excluded, by the insuranc e policy

with Reg is. Id . at 489, 493.
I n th e ins ta nt c a se , A pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e c la im a g a inst Pur e Pa ssi on –n e g lig e nc e in failing to provide sec urity and a sa fe a nd secur e pre mises–is a conc u rr en t ca use which is not excluded by

the insuranc e policy . Rely ing on W att s and Planet Rock , A pp e lla nt a rg ue s th a t th is Court should rever se the g rant of summary judgme nt to the Appellee . We disag ree . Unlike W att s and Planet Rock , this case involves a claim which is excluded by the insuranc e policy . I n W att s , the nonexcluded cause s wer e the place ment of t he pan of flammable substance, Cra fton’s fa ilure to warn Watts of the pre sence of the fla mmable substance , and Craf ton’s neg lige nce in dr opping and kicking the burning substance

. W att s , 811 S.W .2d at 888. I n Planet Rock , the nonexcluded cause wa s the insured’s f

ailure to render or m ake available the appropriate medica l car e. Planet Rock , 6 S.W .3d at 489, 493. Howe ver, in this case , the claim alleg ed by Appellant against Pure P assion is ex cluded by the lang uag e of the assault and battery exclusion in the insuranc e policy . Such policy excludes from cove rag e claims arising out of “[a]ssault and [b] attery , whether cause d by

or at the instruc tions of, or at the direc tion of o r n e g li g e n c e o

f t h e in s u r e d

, h is e mployee s , patrons or a ny cause s whatsoeve r.” ( emphasis ours). A dditionally , the policy excludes claims arising out of “[a]ll eg ations of ne gli ge nt a c t or

om iss ion by or

on be ha lf o

f th e [i] ns ure d in c on ne c tio n wi th hiring , rete ntion or-6-

control of employ ees, su pe rv isi on or

pre v e nti on or

su pp re ssi on of s uc h a ssa ult an d b att e ry .” (empha sis our s ). I n this case, the A ppellant’s cla im falls within the ex clusions articulate d in the insurance policy , and, ther efor e, the “conc urre nt causation doctrine” should not apply to Appellant’s claim. For

this reason, we aff

irm the g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of

Appellee

. Conclusion
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the decision of t he trial court. Cos ts of this appeal a re t a x e d t o A p p e l l a n t , E u g e n e P u g h , a n d h i s s u r e t y f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE