Opinion ID: 1757782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assault and Battery Exclusions

Text: A general liability insurance policy is not intended to cover injuries arising from intentional acts. Lee R. Russ and Thomas F. Segall, 7 Couch 3d on Insurance § 101:22 (1997). Nonetheless, liability policies generally contain specific exclusions from coverage for bodily injuries which are intentionally inflicted. William Shelby McKenzie and H. Alston Johnson, 15 Louisiana Civil Law TreatiseInsurance Law and Practice § 164 (1986). Some policies contain an express exclusion for assault and battery, which has been held effective regardless of whether the insured was a participant in the altercation. Id. Assault and battery exclusions have become commonplace in policies issued to operators of bars, restaurants and similar businesses with a party atmosphere to expressly exclude such acts from coverage. Kimberly J. Winbush, Validity, Construction, and Effect of Assault and Battery Exclusion in Liability Insurance Policy at Issue, 44 A.L.R.5th 91 (1996). Louisiana courts have routinely upheld assault and battery exclusions in other contexts. See Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp., 95-0809 (La.1/6/96); 665 So.2d 1166, which upheld the validity of a policy provision excluding coverage of an innkeeper's liability for the rape of a guest by an unknown assailant whose entry into the guest's room was facilitated by the innkeeper's failure to repair a defective lock. [2] See also Eric Mills Holmes, 4 Holmes' Appleman on Insurance 2d § 23.4 (1998) (noting [i]ncreasingly, policies are excluding coverage for assaults and batteries and citing cases enforcing such exclusions). The question presented here is whether the status of the insured as a private security agent, as opposed to an innkeeper or other type of business enterprise, warrants a different result, at least as to this particular exclusion which provides: This insurance does not apply to Bodily Injury or Property Damage arising from: A) Assault and Battery committed by any insured, any employee of any insured, or any other person, whether or not committed by or at the direction of any insured, B) The failure to suppress or prevent assault and battery by a person in A) above, C) The failure to provide an environment safe from assault and battery or failure to warn of the dangers of the environment which could contribute to assault and battery, D) The negligent hiring, supervision or training of any employee of the insured in A) above, E) The use of any force to protect persons or property whether or not the bodily injury or proeprty [sic] damage was intended from the standpoint of the insured or committed by or at the direction of the insured. Plaintiff contends that such a pervasive assault and battery exclusion in a general liability insurance contract issued to a private security agent to fulfill its statutory licensing requirement is not in harmony with the public policy espoused by the Act of protecting the public from unqualified security agents.