Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion

February 4, 2010

Does the expected or intended injury exclusion in the CGL form exclude coverage for assault and battery? We have two examples.

Two patrons in a bar are fighting and injure each other. They both sue the insured bar owner claiming that the bar was negligent in supervising the premises.

An employee gets into an argument with a customer and a physical confrontation ensues with the customer being injured. The customer sues the owner/employer.

Is there coverage under the CGL form for each one of these scenarios?

Kentucky Subscriber

When it comes to the expected or intended exclusion in the CGL form, the point is that it applies to THE insured that expects or intends the injury or damage. So, unless the bar owner/named insured expected or intended the BI or PD, that exclusion is not applicable to the named insured.

As for the first scenario, negligent supervision does not equate with intent. Unless, the named insured/owner wanted the fight to occur and urged it on, there is no intent or expectation on the part of the insured and the exclusion is not applicable.

As for the second scenario, there is coverage for the owner of the place unless he intends for the employee to fight the customer. The employee may very well be on his own, but his actions are not going to affect coverage for the owner unless the owner wants and expects the employee to injure the customer.