Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court considered whether an assault and/or battery exclusion in a commercial general liability policy barred the insurer's duty to defend and indemnify its insured in an action alleging injuries caused by pub doormen. The court held that Rhode Island's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act did not create a private cause of action and that the exclusion was not illusory because it applied only when intentional contact constituting an assault or battery occurred. The court affirmed summary judgment for Great American.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rhode Island's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act precluded Great American from relying on the assault-and-battery exclusion because it did not disclaim coverage within a reasonable time.
- Whether the assault-and-battery exclusion rendered the insurance coverage illusory and therefore unenforceable.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the undisputed facts concerning the policy exclusion and the alleged intentional physical contact.
Holdings
- The Act does not provide a private cause of action or otherwise preclude Great American from relying on the assault-and-battery exclusion. Great American had no duty to disclaim coverage before completing its investigation.
- The exclusion was not illusory because it applied only when an assault or battery occurred, and a battery requires intentional contact or unconsented touching even though a specific intent to injure is not required.
- Summary judgment for Great American was proper because the assault-and-battery exclusion precluded coverage for the claims arising from the alleged intentional physical contact, leaving no genuine issue of material fact.
Key quotations
“Clearly, the act, upon which defendant relies, does not provide him with a private cause of action.” (575)
“We will deem an exclusion to an insurance policy illusory only when it “would preclude coverage in almost any circumstance.”” (576)
Factual background
Gondusky was a patron at End Zone and attempted to reenter the pub after briefly leaving, but two doormen refused to admit him without payment of another cover charge. Gondusky alleged that one doorman punched him and the other pushed him, causing him to fall, hit his head, lose consciousness, and suffer serious injuries. His underlying complaint characterized the conduct as negligent use of excessive force. Great American's policy contained an assault-and-battery exclusion covering liability arising out of assault or battery and related prevention, supervision, or protection claims.
Procedural history
Gondusky sued End Zone in Washington County Superior Court after allegedly being injured by End Zone doormen. Great American then filed a declaratory-judgment action concerning coverage under End Zone's commercial general liability policy. The action was transferred to Washington County Superior Court, which granted Great American summary judgment and entered a declaration denying defense and indemnity obligations. Gondusky timely appealed; the Supreme Court decided the appeal after directing the parties to show cause why it should not be summarily decided.
Remand instructions
The record was remanded to the Superior Court.