Nyress Manning on Behalf of Minor Child, Corey Williams, Jr., for the Wrongful Death of Dereial Manning and for Survival Damages v. RH Windrun, LLC, The Lynd Company d/b/a Lynd Living, XYZ Security Company, John Doe I, John Doe II, ABC Insurance Company, DEF Insurance Company, GHI Insurance Company

Summary

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court judgment granting James River Insurance Company summary judgment in a wrongful-death and survival action arising from a fatal apartment shooting. The court held that the policy’s assault and battery exclusion unambiguously applied to the shooting and to claims alleging negligent failure to provide adequate security. The court also rejected arguments that the exclusion violated public policy, rendered the policy illusory, or left genuine issues of material fact.

Holdings

1. The shooting constituted both assault and battery under the policy's broad definitions. The gunshot wounds were actual harmful contact for purposes of the policy's battery definition, and the shooting involved threatened harmful contact for purposes of the policy's assault definition, regardless of whether the victim had time to apprehend the threat or whether the assailants directly touched her.
2. The exclusion was clear and unambiguous and applied to the shooting death and to the alleged failure to provide adequate security.
3. The exclusion did not violate Louisiana public policy and did not render the policy illusory.
4. No genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment because the undisputed shooting fell within the exclusion, which expressly covered negligent failure to provide adequate security regardless of the insured's knowledge, foreseeability, or negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the shooting constituted assault or battery under the policy's definitions and Louisiana law.
2. Whether the policy's assault-and-battery exclusion was ambiguous.
3. Whether applying the exclusion violated Louisiana public policy or rendered the policy illusory.
4. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the exclusion's applicability.

Disposition

affirmed