Northfield Insurance v. Boxley
215 F.Supp.2d 656, 2002 WL 1949711, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15790 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurance policy exclusion for bodily injury "arising out of an assault or battery" also bars coverage for negligence claims when the underlying injury originates from an act that legally constitutes an assault or battery. The intent required for battery can be inferred as a matter of law from the defendant's actions, and the intent to commit an assault is sufficient to establish battery if a harmful contact results.
Facts:
- George B. Boxley owned the Sheriff Road Motel and held a commercial general liability insurance policy with Northfield Insurance Company.
- The policy covered bodily injury caused by an "occurrence" (defined as an accident) but contained an exclusion for injury "arising out of an assault or battery or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of an assault or battery."
- On March 19, 2000, Ronald Davis and another man were at the Sheriff Road Motel.
- Around 2:00 p.m., Davis and the other man exited the motel while arguing loudly.
- As Davis crossed the street and approached the trunk of a car, the other man produced a gun.
- The man fired the gun in the direction of the street.
- Davis sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the back of his chest.
- An autopsy report indicated that the bullet struck an "intermediate target" before hitting Davis.
Procedural Posture:
- Juno Davis, the widow of Ronald Davis, filed a wrongful death and survival action against George B. Boxley in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland (a state trial court).
- Northfield Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to determine its coverage obligations.
- A parallel declaratory judgment action was removed from state court and consolidated with the federal action.
- In the consolidated federal action, Northfield Insurance Company and George B. Boxley filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurance policy's exclusion for bodily injury "arising out of an assault or battery" relieve the insurer of its duty to defend its insured in a wrongful death lawsuit where the death resulted from a shooting, even when the underlying lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of the insured?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, District Judge.
Yes. The insurance policy's exclusion for assault and battery relieves the insurer of its duty to defend because the fatal shooting constitutes a battery as a matter of law, and the negligence claims against the insured arise directly from that battery. The court's reasoning is that the duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and a declaratory judgment is appropriate where the allegations are unquestionably outside the policy's coverage. The claims against Boxley for negligent supervision and failure to provide safety are considered claims arising from an "omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of an assault or battery," which falls squarely within the exclusion's language. The court determined that the shooting was a battery, which requires a harmful contact resulting from an act intended to cause such contact. The requisite intent for battery does not need to be a specific intent to cause the exact harm that occurred; it can be implied as a matter of law from the circumstances. Here, the act of producing and firing a gun multiple times during a heated argument allows the court to infer intent. Furthermore, even if the shooter only intended to frighten Davis (an assault), that intent transfers to establish battery once a harmful contact occurred. Therefore, because the underlying injury arose from a battery, the exclusion applies and Northfield has no duty to defend.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad application of "arising out of" language in assault and battery exclusions in insurance contracts. It clarifies that policyholders cannot circumvent such exclusions by framing their claims in terms of negligence, such as negligent hiring or supervision, if the root cause of the injury is an intentional, excluded act. The case also provides a significant example of a court inferring intent for an intentional tort as a matter of law, thereby removing the question from a jury. This precedent strengthens the position of insurers in denying coverage for incidents stemming from violent acts, regardless of how the subsequent lawsuit against the insured is pleaded.
