Assault and Battery Exclusion Includes Negligence

 

In Clinch v. Generali-U.S. Branch, 293 Conn. 774 (Conn., 2009), a restaurant patron claimed that the insured restaurant was negligent for failure to maintain the restaurant in a reasonably safe condition and that as a result of such negligence he was punched and struck inside the restaurant by other customers and in the insured's parking lot and suffered injuries. The patron brought an action against the restaurant's general liability insurer to recover judgment. The superior court entered summary judgment in the insurer's favor and the appellate court affirmed. The patron petitioned for certiorari review.

 

The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the alleged injuries fell within the meaning of the insured's general liability policy, which excluded coverage for claims arising from assault and battery or any act or omission in connection with prevention of such acts by or at the instigation of the insured, the insured's employees, or any other person.

 

Further, the court held that the general liability insurer's failure to define “assault” or “battery” in a provision of the insured's policy did not render the policy ambiguous so as to require the insurer to defend the insured restaurant. According to the court, assault could be committed intentionally, with reckless disregard for consequences, or negligently, and it was the intent of the parties that the policy was to exclude from coverage all assaults and batteries.

Thus, the court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court.