Opinion ID: 1735720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Gun-Related Litigation in Other Jurisdictions

Text: No Florida court has considered the precise question before us: whether a products-completed operations hazard exclusion excludes coverage for a lawsuit filed by municipalities against a gun manufacturer for costs incurred as a result of gun violence. We also have found no other state court that has decided the issue. Three federal courts, however, recently considered such exclusions in similar circumstances. See Brazas, 220 F.3d at 1; Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 17 Fed.Appx. 250 (4th Cir.2001) (unpublished); Mass. Bay Ins. Co. v. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 324 F.Supp.2d 110 (D.Me.2004). In each case, the court found that the exclusion operated to deny coverage. In Brazas, the underlying suit charged the gun manufacturer with flooding the market with more guns than it knew would legitimately be purchased, thus creating an unlawful national market in firearms. 220 F.3d at 3. The policy excluded coverage for all injuries `arising out of' the insured's products. Id. at 6. The court found two interdependent causes of the plaintiffs' injuries: Brazas's alleged misconduct is the over-distribution of firearms and the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries are firearms. . . . Id. at 8. The court concluded that the suits concern off-premises conduct arising out of (not merely incidentally related to) firearms products, and held that the exclusion applied. Id. at 8-9. In Beretta, both the policy at issue and the claims asserted were almost identical to those at issue here. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury and property damage . . . arising out of your product. 17 Fed.Appx. at 252. The underlying litigation was brought by twelve municipalities and a class of individuals. Id. The complaint asserted claims for negligent marketing and distribution of guns and public nuisance, and [sought] to recover expenses allegedly incurred in treating and caring for people who have suffered gunshot injuries. Id. The court concluded that, under Maryland law, the phrase arising out of in the products hazard exclusion means but for causation. Id. at 253. The court then held that coverage did not apply because the alleged injuries arose out of Beretta's products. The court cited with approval the reasoning in Brazas. Id. at 254. Finally, in Bushmaster, a federal district court faced a similar dispute. The underlying suit was commenced by victims and the families of victims of the infamous sniper shootings in Washington, D.C. in the fall of 2002. They sued Bushmaster and others, claiming that the gun industry created a `public nuisance'. . . and . . . that they negligently (with gross negligence, recklessness and outrageous indifference) distributed assault weapons, and are liable for negligent entrustment. 324 F.Supp.2d at 111. The court analyzed the case under Maine law, which required it to examine the allegations of the [complaint] against the coverage and exclusions of the insurance policies, and determine if there is potential coverage. Id. In Maine (as in Florida), if a claim potentially would require indemnity, then the insurance company has the obligation to defend the claim even though ultimately it may not be required to indemnify. Id. at 112. The court determined that the claims against Bushmaster were excluded under the products hazard exclusion to the policy, which excluded `bodily injury' and `property damage' . . . arising out of `your product.' Id. at 112. The court relied heavily on Brazas, citing that court's refusal to limit products hazard exclusion to defective products claims. See id. at 113. Thus, all three courts that have considered the precise issue before us have concluded that the products-completed operations hazard exclusion operates to exclude coverage for claims against a gun manufacturer where the injuries alleged were caused by the guns the defendants had manufactured.