Understanding Assault and Battery Exclusions in Commercial General Liability Policies

Incidents that give rise to assault and battery claims, such as a fight in a parking lot, the ejection of a patron from a venue or an attack on a tenant, can lead to a lawsuit against the business that owns or operates the property. Many owners assume their commercial general liability policy will respond. However, coverage may be limited or unavailable if the policy includes an assault and battery exclusion, which insurers may add by endorsement. This article explains why the exclusion exists, what it removes from coverage, which businesses are exposed and how policyholders can review their policies.

Why the Exclusion Exists

The standard general liability policy does not contain a specific assault and battery exclusion. Insurers add one by endorsement, often depending on the type of business and its location.

The reason lies in how the policy is built. The standard form covers bodily injury caused by an occurrence, usually defined as an accident. It excludes injury expected or intended from the insured’s standpoint, with an exception for reasonable force used to protect people or property. These provisions do not necessarily eliminate coverage for a business sued over an attack by someone else, such as a restaurant sued for failing to protect a guest. An assault and battery endorsement can exclude that exposure expressly, including claims involving reasonable protective force.

What the Exclusion Typically Removes

Assault and battery exclusions are written broadly. Wording varies by insurer, but many remove coverage for injury arising out of an assault or battery regardless of who commits it—the insured, an employee, a patron or anyone else. Exclusions often extend to the claims that usually accompany an attack, including the following:

• Failure to prevent or suppress—Allegations that the business did not stop the assault or battery
• Inadequate security—Allegations that the business failed to provide a safe environment or enough security, or failed to warn of known dangers
• Negligent hiring, training or supervision—Allegations about how the business selected and managed the people involved
• Use of force—Force used to protect people or property, including by security staff
• Failure to render aid—Allegations that the business did not secure medical care for the injured person

Some endorsements define “assault,” “battery” or “physical altercation.” When a term is undefined, courts interpret it under applicable state law, often considering its ordinary meaning and the policy context.

Courts often interpret “arising out of” broadly, so pleading negligent security or negligent hiring may not avoid the exclusion when the alleged injury stems from an assault or battery. Whether an independently caused injury falls outside the exclusion depends on the allegations, policy wording and applicable state law.

Businesses Exposed to Assault and Battery Claims

Bars and restaurants are commonly exposed to assault and battery claims, but alcohol does not have to be involved. Any business where physical harm could occur on or near the premises has an assault and battery exposure. Apartment owners, property managers, hotels, retail stores, shopping centers, schools, sports leagues, clubs, churches and security firms are among the businesses that can face these claims. A claim can also arise in a parking lot or as someone leaves the premises.

Sublimits, Buy-Backs and Related Gaps

Some insurers offer a limited form of coverage instead of a full exclusion. A sublimit may apply, which caps payment for assault and battery claims below the policy’s main limit. Standalone coverage may also be available through surplus lines insurers, and its wording can differ from standard forms. Coverage can be harder to obtain for a business with prior assault and battery claims.

Other policies can leave gaps. Liquor liability policies may also contain assault and battery exclusions or limitations. Businesses should confirm whether coverage is included and whether an endorsement is needed to obtain or broaden it. They should review whether the sublimit applies per event, in the aggregate or both and whether defense costs reduce it. It’s also important to confirm where excess or umbrella coverage attaches; it may not respond immediately above a reduced assault and battery sublimit. An excess or umbrella policy may also carry its own exclusion. A separate weapons or firearms exclusion can also apply to a shooting claim even when assault and battery coverage exists.

Best Practices for Policyholders

Businesses can reduce surprises by reviewing assault and battery terms before a claim arises. Consider the following practices:

• Read the endorsement. Look at how it defines “assault,” “battery” and “physical altercation” and which negligence claims it names.
• Check every policy. Review the general liability, liquor liability and excess policies together, since each may treat these claims differently.
• Ask about options. Ask a broker whether a buy-back, a higher sublimit or standalone coverage is available.
• Compare against contracts. Confirm that any assault and battery exclusion, limitation or sublimit is consistent with the insurance requirements in leases and other agreements.
• Keep records. Save the coverage options offered and any decisions to accept or decline them.

Key Takeaways

The standard general liability policy does not contain a specific assault and battery exclusion, but insurers often add one by endorsement. The exclusion is broad and can reach negligence claims tied to an attack, such as inadequate security or negligent hiring. Sublimits, buy-backs and standalone coverage may be available, and liquor liability and excess policies may carry their own limits. Consulting with a trusted insurance professional can help businesses understand how these terms apply to their operations and identify any gaps.

Contact us today for additional liability insurance guidance.

Article Published By: Zywave, Inc.