FOLLOW US

The Legal Tug-of-War: Exclusion v. Negligence

On appeal, Richards and her legal team, led by William Kenney of Lees Summitt, argued the jury never actually found the bar owner liable for battery, so the assault exclusion shouldn’t apply. She also invoked the “concurrent proximate cause” doctrine, arguing her injuries stemmed not just from battery but also from the bar’s negligent security.

But the appellate court was unmoved. Writing for the Western District, the judges made several key points:

• Battery Happened, Regardless of Fault:Both Richards and the bar owner testified she was physically struck and injured. The jury may have found the owner not civilly liable—possibly due to lawful self-defense—but the assault undeniably occurred.
• Negligence Was Not an Independent Cause:The court drew a sharp distinction between negligence as a concurrent cause and negligence directly arising from an excluded event. Here, the negligence claim existed solely because of the assault. “Without the physical altercation, Richards would not have suffered the injuries,”the opinion noted.
• Policy Language Controls:The court found the insurer’s $25,000 cap for assault and battery “unambiguous and controlling.” Cincinnati’s payment of $29,711.24—covering the cap, court costs, and post-judgment interest—fully satisfied its policy obligations.

Why This Ruling Matters: A Wake-Up Call for Policyholders and Victims

Missouri’s decision in Richards v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters, No. WV87349 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D.) is more than a technical victory for an insurance company. It serves as a stark warning: Even clear jury verdicts and enormous injuries may not defeat a well-written exclusion in an insurance contract.

For bars and other high-risk businesses, the ruling underscores the importance of understanding policy limits—and the dangers of relying on insurance as a catch-all safety net for violent incidents. For victims, it’s a sobering lesson about the gap between civil justice and actual recovery when insurance terms dictate the bottom line.

Legal Context: The ‘Concurrent Cause’ Rule Gets Narrowed

Richards tried to invoke Missouri’s “concurrent proximate cause” rule, which sometimes allows coverage when both covered and excluded events independently cause an injury. The court, however, drew a clear line: negligence here was not independent, but “inextricably linked” to the excluded assault.

The decision distinguished this case from others where broad negligence created risk—such as a hotel failing to provide secure premises generally—arguing that Richards was harmed by “foreseeable and specific harm from known aggressive individuals,” exactly the risk the exclusion targeted.