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.
What’s Next: Legal and Industry Takeaways
Richards, left with a fraction of her damages, illustrates the harsh outcomes that can flow from strict insurance exclusions. The ruling will be cited by insurers and defense attorneys across the Midwest and beyond as a robust shield against large verdicts stemming from bar fights and similar violence.
Attorneys Charles Vaughn and Patrick Cody of St. Louis represented Cincinnati, successfully defending the company’s narrow reading of its policy obligations.
