Admiral Insurance Company v. Ryan Price-Williams

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1110993 Admiral Insurance Company v. Ryan P r i c e - W i l l i a m s Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-09-901938) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g STUART, Justice. The o p i n i o n o f January 1 1 , 2013, i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e following i s substituted therefor. Ryan P r i c e - W i l l i a m s s u e d A d m i r a l Gabriel Dean and C h a r l e s I n s u r a n c e Company a n d Baber i n t h e Mobile Circuit Court 1110993 p u r s u a n t t o A l a b a m a ' s d i r e c t - a c t i o n s t a t u t e , § 27-23-2, A l a . Code 1975. Williams insurance Both 1 t o be Dean and f r a t e r n i t y t o w h i c h Dean and a l l e g e d t h a t A d m i r a l was Baber in a were alleged c o v e r e d under a commercial p o l i c y A d m i r a l had been e n t e r e d Baber i n favor i s s u e d the previous F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l , ("the Price-Williams a judgment t h a t and against underlying the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d f a v o r o f P r i c e - W i l l i a m s and Admiral p o l i c y provided n a t i o n a l Kappa Sigma o b l i g a t e d t o pay action against Admiral, coverage to Price- general-liability Baber belonged. of P r i c e - W i l l i a m s by Dean and action"). a judgment i n holding that Dean and had Baber for the the ^ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s named Dean and B a b e r as d e f e n d a n t s b a s e d on t h e i r s t a t u s as i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s u n d e r § 27-23-2, A l a . Code 1975. S e c t i o n 27-23-2 p r o v i d e s : "Upon t h e r e c o v e r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t any p e r s o n ... by any p e r s o n ... f o r l o s s o r damage on a c c o u n t o f b o d i l y i n j u r y , ... i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i n s u c h a c t i o n was i n s u r e d a g a i n s t t h e l o s s o r damage a t t h e t i m e when t h e r i g h t o f a c t i o n a r o s e , the j u d g m e n t c r e d i t o r s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o have t h e insurance money p r o v i d e d f o r i n the c o n t r a c t of insurance b e t w e e n t h e i n s u r e r and the defendant a p p l i e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t , and i f t h e j u d g m e n t i s n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e when i t i s e n t e r e d , t h e j u d g m e n t c r e d i t o r may p r o c e e d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e i n s u r e r t o reach and apply the insurance money to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the judgment." 2 1110993 negligent and/or wanton underlying action. We acts that formed the b a s i s r e v e r s e and of the remand. I. On January 31, 2004, Price-Williams was attacked and b e a t e n a t a f r a t e r n i t y h o u s e m a i n t a i n e d by t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f South Alabama chapter o f Kappa Sigma i n Mobile (the local c h a p t e r i s h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as "Kappa N u " ; t h e n a t i o n a l fraternity i s r e f e r r e d t o as "Kappa S i g m a " ) . suffered significant, assault and $27,145. On permanent i n j u r i e s incurred medical November 28, as a r e s u l t o f t h e expenses 2005, Price-Williams of approximately Price-Williams sued Kappa Sigma and Kappa Nu and Dean, B a b e r , and M i c h a e l Howard, three the i n d i v i d u a l s a l l e g e d t o have c o m m i t t e d t h e a s s a u l t , i n the M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t . 2 P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s complaint sought r e c o v e r y b a s e d on t h e a s s a u l t and a s s e r t e d wantonness claims based on Dean's and n e g l i g e n c e and/or Baber's failure as o f f i c e r s o f Kappa Nu t o i m p l e m e n t t h e r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m Kappa Sigma r e q u i r e d o f l o c a l c h a p t e r s , w h i c h p r o g r a m , P r i c e Williams alleged, w o u l d have either prevented the assault Dean and B a b e r w e r e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , p r e s i d e n t and v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f Kappa Nu a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a s s a u l t . Neither P r i c e - W i l l i a m s n o r Howard were members o f Kappa Nu. 2 3 1110993 entirely or, intensity. 3 Shortly notified at a after minimum, limited i t received the i t s i n s u r e r A d m i r a l of its duration complaint, a possible and Kappa Sigma occurrence under i t s c o m m e r c i a l g e n e r a l - l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y ; however, because i t s p o l i c y with Admiral contained Kappa S i g m a took initial Price-Williams's claims. own counsel, counsel 4 a s e l f - i n s u r e d retention clause, responsibility represent the Kappa S i g m a t h e r e f o r e which a l s o represented d i d not for Kappa Nu. e i t h e r Dean o r defense retained i t s However, Baber, as officers of Kappa Nu. Howard n e v e r r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l , and never appeared i n the accordingly entered In fact, a g a i n s t them. of their Dean, B a b e r , never answered the a c t i o n , and that neither whom made a c l a i m upon A d m i r a l f o r c o v e r a g e b a s e d upon status of and complaint, a d e f a u l t judgment A summary j u d g m e n t was was also I n t h e weeks a f t e r t h e a s s a u l t , Dean, B a b e r , and Howard were arrested and charged with second-degree assault. A p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r months l a t e r , Dean and B a b e r were e x p e l l e d f r o m Kappa S i g m a b e c a u s e t h e i r i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e a s s a u l t v i o l a t e d t h e Kappa S i g m a code o f c o n d u c t . 3 S e e g e n e r a l l y B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1482 ( 9 t h ed. 2009) ( d e f i n i n g " s e l f - i n s u r e d r e t e n t i o n " as " [ t ] h e amount o f an o t h e r w i s e - c o v e r e d l o s s t h a t i s n o t c o v e r e d by an insurance p o l i c y and t h a t u s u [ a l l y ] must be p a i d b e f o r e t h e i n s u r e r w i l l pay b e n e f i t s " ) . 4 4 1110993 entered trial i n favor began remaining on o f Kappa Sigma, and, November defendant. After 17, 2008, by Kappa the Nu time the jury was only the 5 c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s were made a t the conclusion of t h e t r i a l , Kappa Nu reached a settlement with P r i c e - W i l l i a m s . Upon n o t i f y i n g the trial Price-Williams moved demand and court the trial of the court settlement to withdraw court granted f a c t and his jury t o e n t e r a f i n a l j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t Dean, B a b e r , Howard b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t r i a l . entered agreement, the motion, d i s m i s s e d a 10-page o r d e r 6 t h e j u r y , and c o n t a i n i n g the The and trial thereafter f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s of judgment: "11. As t o [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s ] s e c o n d and t h i r d c a u s e s o f a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t b o t h Dean and B a b e r , as o f f i c e r s o f t h e l o c a l f r a t e r n i t y , had assumed and/or were under a duty to create, i m p l e m e n t , s u p e r v i s e , and e n f o r c e what was d e s c r i b e d during t r i a l as t h e chapter's ' r i s k management program.' The c o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s , b a s e d upon t h e t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d a t t r i a l as w e l l as d o c u m e n t a r y A d m i r a l assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and d e f e n s e o f P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s c l a i m s i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y J u l y 2008 a f t e r Kappa Sigma's c o s t s r e l a t e d t o t h a t c l a i m e x c e e d e d t h e amount s e t f o r t h i n t h e s e l f - i n s u r e d r e t e n t i o n c l a u s e i n t h e Admiral p o l i c y . 5 ^ A p p a r e n t l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d a g a i n s t defendants. 5 s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t the three individual 1110993 evidence introduced during trial, i n c l u d i n g the E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r s ' M a n u a l ... and t h e Kappa Sigma F r a t e r n i t y R i s k Management M a n u a l ... , t h a t t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s b o t h n e g l i g e n t l y and w a n t o n l y b r e a c h e d their individual duties to create, implement, s u p e r v i s e , and e n f o r c e a r i s k management p r o g r a m , and that as a proximate consequence of said breaches, [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] was caused to s u f f e r t h o s e i n j u r i e s and damages as p r o v e n i n t h i s c a s e . "12. More p a r t i c u l a r l y , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t b o t h Dean and B a b e r , i n a c c e p t i n g t h e i r r o l e s as e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s of the l o c a l f r a t e r n i t y , agreed and assumed t h e d u t i e s i m p o s e d upon them t h a t a r e f o u n d i n t h e E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r s ' M a n u a l and the Kappa Sigma F r a t e r n i t y R i s k Management M a n u a l , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t o f a r i s k management p r o g r a m . "13. The evidence introduced at trial e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Dean, t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e l o c a l fraternity, was considered the chief executive o f f i c e r of the chapter. As p r e s i d e n t , Dean assumed and c a r r i e d t h e u l t i m a t e d u t y b o t h i n d i v i d u a l l y and on b e h a l f o f t h e l o c a l and n a t i o n a l f r a t e r n i t y f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e c h a p t e r ' s r i s k management p r o g r a m . T h i s means t h a t i t was h i s responsibility, a c t i n g w i t h i n the scope of his d u t i e s as p r e s i d e n t , t o t a k e s t e p s t o w a r d c r e a t i n g and e n f o r c i n g a r i s k management p r o g r a m f o r t h e l o c a l f r a t e r n i t y at the U n i v e r s i t y of South Alabama. He was responsible for working with the risk management c o m m i t t e e c h a i r m a n on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f the chapter's r i s k management p r o g r a m , and in c a r r y i n g out the g o a l s of p r e v e n t i n g i n j u r i e s a t the chapter house. "14. A d d i t i o n a l l y , s u b s t a n t i a l evidence was i n t r o d u c e d t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t B a b e r , as t h e v i c e president, was the second in command a t the f r a t e r n i t y h o u s e on t h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n . The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t h i s d u t i e s i n c l u d e d not o n l y the 6 1110993 i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a r i s k management p r o g r a m , b u t a l s o t h e a c t u a l e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e p r o g r a m on t h e night i n question. ... [Price-Williams] proved through the evidence at t r i a l t h a t n e i t h e r of these o f f i c e r s t o o k any s t e p s i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e i r d u t i e s of ensuring that o r d e r was maintained at the f r a t e r n i t y h o u s e on t h e e v e n i n g i n q u e s t i o n . "15. To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y and c o n v i n c i n g l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t b o t h Dean and B a b e r h a d b e e n d r i n k i n g t h i s p a r t i c u l a r n i g h t , and t h a t one o r b o t h o f them knew t h a t an a s s a u l t was p r o b a b l y g o i n g t o o c c u r on [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] once he walked through the f r o n t door of the fraternity house. The f a c t t h a t no r i s k management p r o g r a m o r e d u c a t i o n had been implemented o n l y a g g r a v a t e d the s i t u a t i o n once t h e a s s a u l t b e g a n , s i n c e n e i t h e r Dean n o r B a b e r h a d l e f t any r e s p o n s i b l e i n d i v i d u a l i n charge of m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e r a t the f r a t e r n i t y house as was r e q u i r e d u n d e r a r e a s o n a b l e r i s k management p r o g r a m w h i c h , i n t h e c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , w o u l d have minimized and/or prevented the assault from o c c u r r i n g i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e . ... "16. The Kappa Sigma n a t i o n a l f r a t e r n i t y , a former defendant i n t h i s a c t i o n , g r a n t e d t o the local fraternity the authority and right to e s t a b l i s h and o p e r a t e a l o c a l f r a t e r n i t y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a . The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t b o t h Dean and B a b e r , as t h e president and vice president of the local f r a t e r n i t y , p u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y b e s t o w e d upon them by t h e n a t i o n a l and l o c a l f r a t e r n i t y , assumed the duty to create, implement, supervise, and e n f o r c e a r i s k management p r o g r a m r e l a t i v e t o t h e operation of the local fraternity. These i n d i v i d u a l s were o b l i g a t e d t o a c t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e d u t i e s w h i c h were r e q u i r e d t o be p e r f o r m e d as p a r t o f t h e i r d u t i e s on b e h a l f o f t h e l o c a l and national fraternity. The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e s e two individual defendants, Dean and Baber, both n e g l i g e n t l y and w a n t o n l y b r e a c h e d t h e i r individual 7 1110993 d u t i e s by f a i l i n g t o c r e a t e , i m p l e m e n t , s u p e r v i s e , and e n f o r c e an a p p r o p r i a t e r i s k management p r o g r a m as a l l e g e d by [Price-Williams] i n his complaint. The c o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t t h e s e two i n d i v i d u a l ' s n e g l i g e n c e and w a n t o n n e s s was c o m m i t t e d w h i l e a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e s e two i n d i v i d u a l ' s d u t i e s on b e h a l f of the f r a t e r n i t y . " A c c o r d i n g l y , the c o u r t hereby f i n d s i n f a v o r of t h e p l a i n t i f f , Ryan P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , and a g a i n s t t h e t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s , j o i n t l y and s e v e r a l l y , as to the claims raised in [Price-Williams's] complaint. The c o u r t h e r e b y awards t o [ P r i c e Williams] and against the i n d i v i d u a l defendants total compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000. The c o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t an a w a r d o f p u n i t i v e damages i s w a r r a n t e d b a s e d upon t h e c l e a r and convincing evidence of wantonness of the i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s as t o a l l t h r e e c l a i m s r a i s e d i n [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s ] c o m p l a i n t , and h e r e b y awards to [Price-Williams] and against the i n d i v i d u a l defendants punitive damages in the amount of $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 , w h i c h i s one and o n e - h a l f t i m e s t h e amount o f c o m p e n s a t o r y damages t o be a w a r d e d t o [ P r i c e Williams]. The t o t a l amount o f t h e v e r d i c t i s t h e r e f o r e $1,250,000. I t i s the i n t e n t i o n of t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h i s v e r d i c t r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l damages t o be a w a r d e d t o [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] i n t h i s c a s e f o r a l l damage[] s u f f e r e d by him as a r e s u l t o f t h e J a n u a r y 31, 2004, i n c i d e n t , and t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o a s e t o f f o f t h e amount p a i d t o [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] by [Kappa Nu] as a r e s u l t of the c o n f i d e n t i a l pro t a n t o settlement." S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e r e was and Kappa Nu regarding a d i s p u t e between P r i c e - W i l l i a m s the settlement agreement s p e c i f i c a l l y , w h e t h e r as p a r t o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t had agreed to release only Kappa Sigma and 8 and, Price-Williams Kappa Nu or, as 1110993 Kappa Nu maintained, Dean Baber and to release in their Kappa S i g m a , Kappa Nu, c a p a c i t i e s as agents of Kappa and Nu. M o t i o n s were f i l e d by b o t h p a r t i e s w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w h i c h eventually appealed ruled that d e c i s i o n of the in favor judgment trial of to this court, Price-Williams. Court, which Kappa affirmed Nu the stating: "At t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p a r t i e s ' m o t i o n s t o e n f o r c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t h e l d on F e b r u a r y 6, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y n o t e d t h a t c o u n s e l f o r [Kappa Nu] d i d not r e p r e s e n t the individual d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t c o u n s e l t h e r e f o r e had no b a s i s on w h i c h t o a r g u e on b e h a l f of the individual defendants. The trial court also correctly c o n c l u d e d t h a t a r e l e a s e by P r i c e - W i l l i a m s o f a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t [Kappa Nu], i n c l u d i n g a l l claims b a s e d on t h e o r i e s o f v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y , would f u l l y p r o t e c t the chapter from l i a b i l i t y even l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from a c t i o n s of the individual defendants to the e x t e n t they are agents of the chapter. In l i g h t of the c o l l o q u y t h a t took p l a c e on November 20, 2008 [when t h e p a r t i e s a n n o u n c e d t h a t a s e t t l e m e n t had b e e n r e a c h e d ] , we conclude that the trial court's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the settlement a g r e e m e n t was not clearly erroneous, w i t h o u t s u p p o r t i n g evidence, m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t , or a g a i n s t the g r e a t weight of evidence." Kappa Sigma F r a t e r n i t y v. (Ala. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , 40 So. 3d 683, 693 months b e f o r e our released, Price-Williams f i l e d the 2009). On O c t o b e r 6, 2009, a p p r o x i m a t e l y d e c i s i o n i n Kappa Sigma was two i n s t a n t a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 27-23-2, a l l e g i n g t h a t , by v i r t u e 9 1110993 of their s t a t u s as o f f i c e r s additional insureds under o f Kappa Nu, the Dean and B a b e r were commercial general-liability i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y Kappa Sigma h e l d w i t h A d m i r a l on t h e d a t e the a s s a u l t . A d m i r a l f i l e d a response B a b e r were covered 2011, trial the Admiral mistaken did not belief u n d e r Kappa court t h a t the submission of b r i e f s . trial receive exhibits, Admiral a trial, case and On 3, 7 bench trial; having been w o u l d be to hear decided testimony d e p o s i t i o n s , and May however, under the through the from Baber and documentary evidence and Price-Williams thereafter from and, submitted trial on M a r c h 9, 2012, c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g i t s f i n d i n g s o f c o n c l u s i o n s of Price-Williams. to attendance. b r i e f s i n support of t h e i r p o s i t i o n s , the t r i a l and N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g A d m i r a l ' s absence, the 8 court proceeded the p a r t i e s i n the t h a t Dean Sigma's p o l i c y . conducted attend denying of law In and that fact e n t e r i n g a judgment i n f a v o r final judgment, the trial of court Baber f i l e d a c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i n s t Admiral seeking a r u l i n g t h a t A d m i r a l was r e q u i r e d t o i n d e m n i f y h i m f o r t h e judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him i n the u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t d e c i d e d t h i s c l a i m i n f a v o r o f A d m i r a l , and B a b e r has n o t a p p e a l e d t h a t j u d g m e n t . 7 C o u n s e l f o r A d m i r a l was the morning of the t r i a l . 8 c o n t a c t e d by t h e t r i a l 10 court on 1110993 recognized Admiral that policy resulting but an assault-and-battery excluded coverage f r o m Dean's and held that c a u s e d by the exclusion Baber's for any Baber's a s s a u l t Howard's a s s a u l t Dean's and exclusion d i d not bodily on apply in the injury Price-Williams to b o d i l y injury or b o d i l y i n j u r y a t t r i b u t a b l e to negligence and wantonness in failing implement a p r o p e r risk-management program, which f a i l u r e , trial to the c o u r t c o n c l u d e d , " a c t u a l l y f a c i l i t a t e d Howard's c o n d u c t o f a s s a u l t i n g [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] . " No p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s were filed, and, on April appeal to t h i s 19, 2012, Admiral filed i t s notice of Court. II. The trial court written evidence; appeal hinges in this however, solely on case considered our r e s o l u t i o n of the application both of and issues the oral on unambiguous language i n the A d m i r a l commercial g e n e r a l - l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y to undisputed f a c t s . Accordingly, is the inapplicable afforded no therefore, & Dev. Co., here, and presumption i s de novo. 585 So. 2d See 853, of trial the ore court's Our a l s o M c D o n a l d v. U.S. 11 ( A l a . 1991) tenus r u l e judgment correctness. 855 insurance review, Die ("If is the Casting terms 1110993 w i t h i n a c o n t r a c t a r e p l a i n and u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e of the for c o n t r a c t and the court construction i t s l e g a l e f f e c t become q u e s t i o n s of law "). III. Admiral reversed claims because, i s t h a t he assault and contains apply argues t h a t the t r i a l injury,' and Kappa injury,' 'advertising injury' Accordingly, Admiral coverage Williams's Sigma's as "This a r e s u l t of insurance damage,' arising be Price-Williams's p o l i c y with 'property a s s a u l t a n d / o r b a t t e r y by any that gravamen o f following exclusion: 'bodily or the judgment s h o u l d suffered bodily injury battery the to i t says, court's out of an Admiral does not 'personal any act of i n s u r e d or a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r e d . " argues, the t r i a l e x i s t e d because court erred i n f i n d i n g i t i s undisputed that Price- i n j u r i e s a r o s e o u t o f an a s s a u l t i n w h i c h Dean and Baber p a r t i c i p a t e d . In support of this argument, W e s t e r n W o r l d I n s u r a n c e Co., 481 which a this plaintiff's based on Court affirmed negligence injuries he and Admiral So. judgment wantonness received 12 2d cites 878 Gregory v. ( A l a . 1985), in declaring claims a f t e r being that against assaulted a a bar by a 1110993 patron a t t h e b a r were policy because n o t c o v e r e d by the p o l i c y alleging "'bodily injury assault and instigation patrons, battery or insurance or property ... , direction o r any o t h e r specifically the person.'" excluded insurance any damage a r i s i n g whether of the bar's caused insured, by or his claim out of at the employees, 481 So. 2d a t 878 (quoting policy). P r i c e - W i l l i a m s c o n c e d e s t h a t , b a s e d on t h e c l e a r t e r m s o f the assault-and-battery attributable to exclusion Dean's and i n the p o l i c y , Baber's participation a s s a u l t were n o t c o v e r e d u n d e r t h e A d m i r a l he nevertheless because injury any argues the Admiral "arising insured that Admiral insured (emphasis or policy for h i s claim by insured from the 13 Howard, under Price-Williams policy and he was the who exclusion broader was Admiral argues t h a t by a s s a u l t e d not who were a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r e d s but also additional added). Admiral exists However, only coverage f o r b o d i l y or a d d i t i o n a l insured" language i n the a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y the policy. i n the o u t o f any a c t o f a s s a u l t a n d / o r b a t t e r y o n l y by Dean a n d B a b e r the coverage p o l i c y excludes injuries this under n o t an policy limiting differentiates assault-and-battery 1110993 e x c l u s i o n i n the insurance p o l i c y a t i s s u e i n Gregory which e x c l u d e d c o v e r a g e f o r any c l a i m a l l e g i n g b o d i l y i n j u r y a r i s i n g out of a s s a u l t instigation patrons, insurance and b a t t e r y or direction o r any o t h e r policy argues, t h i s However, involvement 9 this of the caused insured, by or at the his employees, p e r s o n . ' " 481 So. 2d a t 878 (emphasis added)). Thus, Price-Williams's i n the assault exclusion avoids argument (quoting Price-Williams case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Gregory. assault-and-battery recognize "'whether 9 that the a p p l i c a t i o n Howard's of the i n the Admiral p o l i c y f a i l s to t h a t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t A d m i r a l was b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t The t r i a l c o u r t a g r e e d w i t h P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s a r g u m e n t i n r e g a r d , s t a t i n g i n i t s f i n a l judgment: "The a s s a u l t a n d b a t t e r y e x c l u s i o n i s u n a m b i g u o u s and c l e a r l y e x c l u d e s c o v e r a g e f o r any b o d i l y i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] c a u s e d by Dean a n d Baber's conduct o f a s s a u l t i n g him. T h i s e x c l u s i o n , however, i s s e l f - l i m i t i n g , as i t a p p l i e s o n l y t o any damage[] due t o t h e a s s a u l t a n d b a t t e r y b y Dean a n d B a b e r , n o t any i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by M i c h a e l Howard ( s i n c e Howard was n o t an i n s u r e d u n d e r t h e p o l i c y ) . B o t h A d m i r a l and [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] a g r e e t h a t t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l s were i n v o l v e d i n a s s a u l t i n g [ P r i c e Williams]: Dean, B a b e r , a n d Howard. A l t h o u g h Dean and B a b e r ' s conduct o f a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y i s e x c l u d e d u n d e r t h e p o l i c y , b e c a u s e Howard was n o t an i n s u r e d under the p o l i c y , t h i s e x c l u s i o n a r y clause does n o t a p p l y t o t h e damage[] c a u s e d by Howard's conduct." 14 1110993 t o § 27-23-2 t o s e e k payment o f a j u d g m e n t p r e v i o u s l y against Admiral action. 2d 1138, Travelers 338 insureds Dean and Barber i n the entered underlying I n H a s t o n v. T r a n s a m e r i c a I n s u r a n c e S e r v i c e s , 662 1139-40 ( A l a . 1995) I n d e m n i t y Co. (Ala. 2011)), (reversed of Connecticut on v. other grounds Miller, 86 So. t h i s Court s t a t e d : "A c l a i m u n d e r §§ 27-23-1 and - 2 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] t o a p p l y t h e p r o c e e d s o f a c o n t r a c t of i n s u r a n c e t o s a t i s f y a j u d g m e n t has b e e n d e s c r i b e d by t h i s C o u r t as f o l l o w s : "'Under A l a b a m a l a w , t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y a c q u i r e s a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t (secondary) i n the nature of a hypothecation of the i n s u r e d ' s r i g h t s under the p o l i c y . " ' "'Once an i n j u r e d p a r t y has recovered a judgment a g a i n s t the i n s u r e d , the i n j u r e d p a r t y may c o m p e l t h e i n s u r e r t o pay the j u d g m e n t . The i n j u r e d p a r t y , h o w e v e r , can b r i n g an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r o n l y a f t e r he has r e c o v e r e d a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d and o n l y i f t h e i n s u r e d was c o v e r e d a g a i n s t t h e l o s s o r damage a t t h e time the i n j u r e d p a r t y ' s r i g h t of a c t i o n arose a g a i n s t the i n s u r e d t o r t - f e a s o r . ' "Maness v. A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u Mut. C a s u a l t y I n s . Co., 416 So. 2d 979, 981-82 ( A l a . 1982) . The i n j u r e d p a r t y ' s 'vested i n t e r e s t ' i s s u b j e c t to the f u r t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h a t 'the t e r m s o f t h e p o l i c y i m p o s i n g o b l i g a t i o n s on t h e i n s u r e d a r e e f f e c t i v e as a g a i n s t the i n j u r e d p a r t y . ' George v. E m p l o y e r s ' L i a b . A s s u r a n c e C o r p . , 219 A l a . 307, 310, 122 So. 15 So. by 3d 1110993 175, 177 (192 9 ) ; see James & Hackworth v. C o n t i n e n t a l C a s u a l t y Co., 522 F. Supp. 785, 787 (N.D. A l a . 1980). Thus, d e f e n s e s t o liability a v a i l a b l e t o t h e i n s u r e r i n an a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e i n s u r e d w o u l d a l s o be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e i n s u r e r i n an a c t i o n b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o §§ 27-23-1 and -2 by t h e injured party. E m p l o y e r s I n s . Co. v. C r o o k , 276 Ala. 177, 183, 160 So. 2d 463, 469-70 (1964); E m p l o y e r s I n s . Co. v. J o h n s t o n , 238 A l a . 26, 31, 189 So. 58, 62 ( 1 9 3 9 ) ; see F l e m i n g v. Pan A m e r i c a n F i r e & C a s u a l t y Co., 495 F.2d 535, 541 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) ; S o u t h e a s t e r n F i r e I n s . Co. v. H e l t o n , 192 F. Supp. 441, 444-45 (S.D. A l a . 1 9 6 1 ) . " (Emphasis Williams added.) Thus, effectively tortfeasors this stands Dean and e n t i t l e d to recover in Baber in § 27-23-2 the action, shoes of his claim, i n making Price- the insured and from A d m i r a l o n l y to the e x t e n t he o f Dean's and B a b e r ' s c o v e r a g e f o r t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them. is a c k n o w l e d g e d by a l l parties that Dean and is Baber d i d It not have c o v e r a g e f o r t h e i r a c t o f a s s a u l t b e c a u s e o f t h e assault- and-battery general- liability exclusion insurance in the policy, Admiral and that p r e v e n t s P r i c e - W i l l i a m s from r e c o v e r i n g The the commercial exclusion therefore f r o m A d m i r a l as w e l l . f a c t t h a t Howard, a n o n - i n s u r e d , a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n assault is ultimately of no effect. Price-Williams's a t t e m p t t o d i s t i n g u i s h G r e g o r y on t h e b a s i s o f t h e more b r o a d assault-and-battery exclusion i n that 16 case misses the mark 1110993 because P r i c e - W i l l i a m s i s not a t t e m p t i n g fulfill a judgment e n t e r e d to i t s i n s u r e d Kappa Nu for i n j u r i e s he r e c e i v e d i n an a s s a u l t c o m m i t t e d s o l e l y by a non- insured s u c h as Admiral to Dean and against to require Admiral Howard; r a t h e r , he fulfill a i s attempting judgment e n t e r e d Baber f o r i n j u r i e s he r e c e i v e d as a s s a u l t i n which they p a r t i c i p a t e d . "[I]nsurance companies contracts enforced are As we entitled as w r i t t e n assault-and-battery against " the its require insureds r e s u l t of an s t a t e d i n Gregory: to have 481 to So. e x c l u s i o n i n the Admiral their policy 2d a t 881. policy The excludes c o v e r a g e f o r an a c t o f a s s a u l t c o m m i t t e d by an i n s u r e d s u c h as Dean o r B a b e r , and § 27-23-2 c a n n o t be u s e d t o r e q u i r e to pay a judgment inflicted in a entered against non-covered assault i n s u r e d a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Moreover, the Williams from negligence insured simply injuries because a non- assault. assault-and-battery recovering for from A d m i r a l exclusion bars P r i c e on the basis of the and w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s he a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t Dean B a b e r b a s e d on program an Admiral their f o r Kappa conduct i s not Nu itself failure even to implement a though excluded 17 that risk-management negligent from coverage. and As or the wanton trial 1110993 court stated negligent or in its wanton final acts judgment, in failing Dean's to and implement Baber's a risk- management p r o g r a m c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e a s s a u l t t o r e s u l t i n i n d i v i s i b l e i n j u r y " to P r i c e - W i l l i a m s . is impossible injuries the and failure to the to 3d 688, 694 of i t Price-Williams's a w a r d o f damages b a s e d on those i n j u r i e s i m p l e m e n t a r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m and ( A l a . 2009) t h a t t h e r e was S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, a l l o c a t e some p o r t i o n other p o r t i o n to the a s s a u l t . "one some Compare Crews v. M c L i n g , 38 ( a f f i r m i n g the t r i a l court's to So. judgment n o t a " s i n g l e i n d i v i s i b l e i n j u r y " where expert w i t n e s s e s were a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n damage t o a m o b i l e home attributable attributable to to the the manufacturer installer). 1 0 and All other of damage Price- This Court further explained the concept of an i n d i v i s i b l e i n j u r y i n S t a t e Farm F i r e & C a s u a l t y Co. v. S l a d e , 747 So. 2d 293 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . In Slade, the p l a i n t i f f s sued a number o f c o n t r a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e i r h o u s e , as w e l l as S t a t e Farm, w h i c h had i s s u e d a homeowners' i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y on t h a t h o u s e , a f t e r f o u n d a t i o n problems became a p p a r e n t . This Court concluded that these defendants had n o t c o m b i n e d t o c a u s e one i n d i v i s i b l e i n j u r y , s t a t i n g : 1 0 "In the present case, there was no 'single, indivisible i n j u r y ' c a u s e d by the construction d e f e n d a n t s and S t a t e Farm. I n f a c t , t h e r e were two injuries flowing from two separate allegedly tortious acts: (1) damage c a u s e d by t h e alleged n e g l i g e n t a n d / o r w a n t o n c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t was done by t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n d e f e n d a n t s and (2) damage c a u s e d 18 1110993 Williams's injuries assault notwithstanding arose from and were t h e p r o d u c t the f a c t that of the the n e g l i g e n t or w a n t o n f a i l u r e t o i m p l e m e n t a r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m may have been an a d d i t i o n a l p r o x i m a t e c a u s e . C n t y . , 595 So. 2d 1381, 1384 See S p r i n g e r v. J e f f e r s o n ( A l a . 1992) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t an i n j u r y may have s e v e r a l c o n c u r r e n t p r o x i m a t e The a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y states that there arising out insured or of i s no any additional Therefore, and/or A l l of injury' battery by ... any Price-Williams's r e s u l t e d f r o m an a c t o f a s s a u l t i n insureds regardless i n the Admiral p o l i c y for "'bodily assault insured." i n j u r i e s without question which coverage a c t of additional exclusion causes). Dean and Baber of the f a c t that there participated. may have been a by t h e a l l e g e d b a d - f a i t h r e f u s a l t o p a y an i n s u r a n c e c l a i m . A l s o , the i n j u r i e s the [ p l a i n t i f f s ] c l a i m t o have s u f f e r e d were n o t i n d i v i s i b l e . Moreover, the a c t s o f t h e two g r o u p s o f d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t combine t o c a u s e any one i n j u r y . S t a t e Farm t o o k no p a r t i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e home, and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n d e f e n d a n t s t o o k no p a r t i n t h e r e f u s a l t o p a y an insurance claim." 747 So. 2d a t 325. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , two s e p a r a t e t o r t i o u s a c t s have a l s o been a l l e g e d ; h o w e v e r , u n l i k e S l a d e , t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r d i v i d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s b e t w e e n t h o s e two a c t s , and t h e same i n d i v i d u a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r one a c t (the n e g l i g e n t o r w a n t o n a c t ) a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s e c o n d a c t ( t h e a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y ) . 19 1110993 separate act injuries, there of the that i s no then contributed 1081 a Co. v. ( A l a . 1999) court exclusion Price-Williams's The must be American Cent. Ins. c l e a r terms enforced. Co., 739 See So. 2d ("If a p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n i s u n a m b i g u o u s , must e n f o r c e cannot defeat to coverage i n t h i s case. assault-and-battery Auto-Owners I n s . 1078, also the p o l i c y as express p r o v i s i o n s , i t i s written including exclusions and from coverage."). IV. Price-Williams obtaining s u e d A d m i r a l p u r s u a n t t o § 27-23-2 a f t e r a judgment a g a i n s t Dean and B a b e r , who he were i n s u r e d by A d m i r a l u n d e r a p o l i c y A d m i r a l had alleged issued to Kappa Sigma, by v i r t u e o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n s as o f f i c e r s o f Kappa Nu. Following judgment fulfill in not favor the underlying a bench of trial, provide trial Price-Williams, judgment e n t e r e d action. the against entered a obligating Admiral to Dean and However, b e c a u s e t h e coverage to Dean and court Baber participated, arose the from trial an assault court Baber for 20 i n which erred the Admiral p o l i c y did "any a s s a u l t a n d / o r b a t t e r y " and b e c a u s e P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s undisputedly in in act injuries Dean and holding of Baber Admiral 1110993 r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t Dean a n d B a b e r i n the underlying action. The trial court's judgment is a c c o r d i n g l y r e v e r s e d a n d t h e c a u s e remanded. APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF JANUARY 11, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED. Bolin, P a r k e r , Main, Wise, and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s specially. Moore, C . J . , a n d Shaw, J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t . 21 2013, 1110993 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I concur issues i n the addressed e x p l a i n my (concurring specially). d i s p o s i t i o n by therein. I write r e a s o n s f o r d o i n g so and i n which the the main o p i n i o n separately B e f o r e e x p l a i n i n g my the to further t o comment on t h e context i s s u e s a d d r e s s e d i n the main o p i n i o n Preliminary of arise. Observations agreement w i t h the d i s p o s i t i o n by the main o p i n i o n of the i s s u e s a d d r e s s e d t h e r e i n , I b e l i e v e i t important these to note issues c e r t a i n aspects are presented in of this the context case. in which First, the f o r m u l a t i o n and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c y was something the Kappa Sigma, a s k e d o f the o f f i c e r s o f l o c a l c h a p t e r s i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y as a g e n t s o f the national fraternity, national fraternity. G a b r i e l Dean and C h a r l e s c a p a c i t i e s as p r e s i d e n t and the therefore, local chapter, responsibility to the vice president, may national fraternity Baber, i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l y , of have assumed to promulgate a p o l i c y i n order to a i d the n a t i o n a l f r a t e r n i t y i n the duties i m p o s e d by the fraternity house. law We upon i t i n r e l a t i o n do not a p p e a r t o be a such fulfilling to v i s i t o r s to presented in t h i s a p p e a l w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r Dean and B a b e r , i n t h e i r 22 1110993 individual c a p a c i t i e s , owed a p e r s o n a l duty t o Ryan P r i c e - W i l l i a m s t o p r o m u l g a t e and i m p l e m e n t a r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t O b v i o u s l y , t h e y owed a p e r s o n a l assault and b a t t e r h i m . implement a d i f f e r e n t i s s u e , however. of Agency: (2006) Duty specifically policy to create for his benefit See g e n e r a l l y R e s t a t e m e n t to Principal; Duty to Third and is a (Third) Party § 7.02 ("An a g e n t ' s b r e a c h o f a d u t y owed t o t h e p r i n c i p a l i s n o t an i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s t h i r d party. party duty t o P r i c e - W i l l i a m s not t o A duty risk-management policy. f o r the agent's t o r t l i a b i l i t y An a g e n t i s s u b j e c t t o t o r t l i a b i l i t y harmed b y t h e a g e n t ' s conduct breaches a duty conduct that only the agent when owes to a to a third the agent's to the third p a r t y . " ) ; c f . C o m m e r c i a l U n i o n I n s . Co. v . DeShazo 845 So. 2d 766, 770 ( A l a . 2002) ( " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e ' i n s p e c t i o n a n d a u d i t ' clauses a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t any i n s p e c t i o n was s o l e l y f o r t h e benefit of the defendants, clauses, made 'on b e h a l f insured or others.'" and n o t , as described i n the o f o r f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e named (emphasis omitted)). S e c o n d , t h e C o u r t d e c i d e s t h i s c a s e t o d a y on t h e b a s i s o f an " e x c l u s i o n a r y c l a u s e " a p p l i c a b l e t o i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m an assault and b a t t e r y . I t may 23 be n o t e d as w e l l that the 1110993 "coverage" language i n the p o l i c y a p p l i e s i n the only to "occurrences" "accidents." "[A] CGL i n s u r e d from b e a r i n g and or, as policy that is financial term intended first is '"to responsibility defined, protect Prop., L.L.C. v. So. Oct. 21, 2011] Ins. Co. v. Holder, Amerisure 3d Co., [Ms. ( A l a . 2011) 539, (quoting Fire F. Supp. 2d 917, 261 Essex ( 2 0 0 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n N a b h o l z C o n s t r . C o r p . v. S t . P a u l From t h e s t a n d p o i n t 535, 1100009, 459 354 Ark. Town & S.W.3d 456, & M a r i n e I n s . Co., 372 , Ins. an f o r unexpected a c c i d e n t a l damage t o p e o p l e o r p r o p e r t y Country place 923 (E.D. Ark. o f t h e i n s u r e d s , Dean and B a b e r 2005)). ( i n whose s h o e s P r i c e - W i l l i a m s must s t a n d i n p u r s u i n g h i s d i r e c t - a c t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e i r i n s u r e r t o r e c o v e r t h e damages he has awarded against W i l l i a m s was and them anything personally), but Baber i n t e n t i o n a l l y , the "damage" " u n e x p e c t e d and to Price- accidental." p h y s i c a l l y attacked and been Dean "battered" the v i c t i m , P r i c e - W i l l i a m s . The result achieved in this case thus o n l y w i t h t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y i n A l a b a m a and indemnifying own an intentional i s i n accord elsewhere insured for a loss resulting wrongdoing, but 24 also with against from h i s or the fact not that her an 1110993 "assault and battery" is an c a n n o t p r o p e r l y be c o n s i d e r e d of l i a b i l i t y i n t e n t i o n a l act and therefore an " a c c i d e n t " w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g policies: "Insurance l i a b i l i t y p o l i c i e s t r a d i t i o n a l l y have been construed as not providing coverage for a s s a u l t s and b a t t e r i e s c o m m i t t e d by t h e i n s u r e d , due t o t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y a g a i n s t i n d e m n i f y i n g one f o r h i s o r h e r own w r o n g d o i n g . M o r e o v e r , ' o c c u r r e n c e ' or 'accident'-based policies often have been i n t e r p r e t e d t o n o t encompass c l a i m s a r i s i n g f r o m a s s a u l t s and b a t t e r i e s . " Kimberly J . Winbush, A n n o t a t i o n , Validity, Construction E f f e c t o f A s s a u l t and B a t t e r y E x c l u s i o n i n L i a b i l i t y P o l i c y at Issue, 44 A . L . R . 5 t h 91 Issues As to the plaintiff opinion that has cannot Baber's case a notes, Addressed i n the Main issues outcome i n t h i s addressed main i s g o v e r n e d by two facts. Price-Williams's alleged Opinion the nonseverable divided and claim allocated negligence in not Insurance 1 1 in single, be (1996). and claim. opinion, the First, the As the i s for bodily between injury Dean's promulgating main and and i m p l e m e n t i n g a r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c y and t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t a c t ^^The p o l i c y at issue also contains an e x c l u s i o n f o r " ' b o d i l y i n j u r y ' o r ' p r o p e r t y damage' e x p e c t e d o r intended f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f t h e i n s u r e d , " w h i c h w o u l d a p p e a r t o be s u f f i c i e n t i n and o f i t s e l f t o r e q u i r e a j u d g m e n t i n A d m i r a l ' s favor. 25 1110993 o f i n t e n t i o n a l l y a s s a u l t i n g and b a t t e r i n g P r i c e - W i l l i a m s . Nor can i t be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h o s e b l o w s s t r u c k by M i c h a e l Howard and t h o s e s t r u c k by Dean and B a b e r d u r i n g t h e a s s a u l t . Price- Williams's s i n g l e , nonseverable claim i s e i t h e r covered its entirety by t h e A d m i r a l i n s u r a n c e in p o l i c y , or i t i s not. S e c o n d , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t e v e r o t h e r a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s by Dean and Baber or by a third party (i.e., Howard) may have f a c i l i t a t e d or c o n t r i b u t e d to P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s b o d i l y i n j u r y , i t i s undeniable that t h i s i n d i v i s i b l e b o d i l y i n j u r y d i d a r i s e out o f an a s s a u l t and To be policy of c o m m i t t e d by a p p l i e d t o t h e s e two language: injury,' battery ... assault insured." "This and/or in does i n j u r y ' ... battery Courts f a c t s i s the insurance [or] ' p e r s o n a l other by Dean and any states following not apply assault acts loss. or 1 2 and to bar battery, "causes Even of 'bodily insured that or have act additional addressed the assault-and- c o v e r a g e when a l o s s a r i s e s f r o m regardless action" more to simple a r i s i n g o u t o f any i s s u e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y unanimous i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g battery exclusions Baber. that of whether have specifically, there are contributed most of to an other that these The above-cited annotation further explains that, notwithstanding the above-noted p r i n c i p l e s regarding the 12 26 1110993 c o n s t r u c t i o n of "coverage" clauses, "many l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e contracts, particularly those i s s u e d to bars, restaurants, and similar e s t a b l i s h m e n t s i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y e x c l u s i o n s , a i m e d a t p r e c l u d i n g c o v e r a g e o f damages c a u s e d by t h e s e t y p e s o f t o r t s . These e x c l u s i o n s have spawned a w i d e v a r i e t y o f c h a l l e n g e s , b o t h t o their validity and to their applicability to p a r t i c u l a r c o n d u c t and i n d i v i d u a l s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n Liquor Liability Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. H e r m i t a g e I n s . Co. (1995) 419 Mass. 316, 644 N.E.2d 964, 44 A . L . R . 5 t h 787, t h e c o u r t d e c l a r e d t h a t an a s s a u l t v i c t i m ' s claims of negligence against the i n s u r e d b a r ... d i d n o t f a l l w i t h i n an a s s a u l t and battery exclusion i n that tavern's insurance p o l i c y . However, most o t h e r c o u r t s have d i s a g r e e d , finding that a l l claims, whether r o o t e d i n the actual assault and battery, or couched i n negligence l a n g u a g e , t h a t a r i s e f r o m an a s s a u l t and battery f a l l w i t h i n t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f an a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y exclusion." Winbush, 44 A.L.R.5th 91. The annotation includes a c u m u l a t i v e s u p p l e m e n t l i s t i n g 44 c a s e s f r o m 16 different j u r i s d i c t i o n s i t d e s c r i b e s as h o l d i n g " e i t h e r i m p l i c i t l y o r e x p l i c i t l y ... t h a t a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y e x c l u s i o n s e n c o m p a s s e d c l a i m s a l l e g i n g t h a t the i n s u r e d ' s negligence caused the damages i n l i t i g a t i o n . " In c o n t r a s t , the a n n o t a t i o n l i s t s a t o t a l of e i g h t cases i t i n t r o d u c e s w i t h the f o l l o w i n g statement: "Assault and b a t t e r y e x c l u s i o n s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s were r u l e d t o n o t r e l i e v e i n s u r a n c e companies from t h e i r d u t i e s t o d e f e n d or indemnify insureds for claims arising from their assault-and-battery-related negligence." Of these eight c a s e s , h o w e v e r , a l l b u t two a r e c a s e s f r o m j u r i s d i c t i o n s listed in the previous section that lists for those j u r i s d i c t i o n s more r e c e n t c a s e s e m b r a c i n g t h e m a j o r i t y r u l e o r t h a t a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . The r e m a i n i n g two i n c l u d e t h e one case c i t e d i n the quoted passage above, L i q u o r L i a b i l i t y J o i n t 27 1110993 cases stand f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that l i a b i l i t y - p o l i c y that exclude losses effective arising t o b a r payments f r o m an a s s a u l t f o r any such clauses and b a t t e r y loss, even when are the only improper conduct of the i n s u r e d i s a p u r e l y n e g l i g e n t a c t or omission subsequent that simply made possible or i n t e n t i o n a l a s s a u l t or b a t t e r y . facilitated A fortiori, the this b a s i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g a p p l i e s i n a c a s e s u c h as t h i s i n w h i c h i t i s t h e i n s u r e d h i m s e l f who a s s a u l t and commits t h e s u b s e q u e n t intentional battery. A d m i r a l r e l i e s on s u c h c a s e s as A u t o - O w n e r s I n s u r a n c e Co. v. American Central 1999), Horace 481 So. Co., Mann I n s u r a n c e Co. ( A l a . C i v . App. Co., Insurance 739 So. 2d v. D.A.C., 710 1078 So. (Ala. 2d 1274 1 9 9 8 ) , and G r e g o r y v. W e s t e r n W o r l d I n s u r a n c e 2d 878 ( A l a . 1985). Price-Williams argues that t h e s e c a s e s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e y i n v o l v e separate this "claims" case i t arising is o u t o f t h e same " a c t , " w h e r e a s i n possible to distinguish between U n d e r w r i t i n g A s s ' n o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s v. H e r m i t a g e I n s u r a n c e Co., 419 Mass. 316, 644 N.E.2d 964 ( 1 9 9 5 ) , and Mount V e r n o n F i r e I n s u r a n c e Co. v. C r e a t i v e H o u s i n g L t d . , 70 F.3d 720 (2d C i r . 1995). The f o r m e r i s p r o b a b l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b a s e d on the c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c l a u s e a t i s s u e ; the l a t t e r a p p l i e s t h e l a w o f t h e S t a t e o f New Y o r k , a s t a t e t h a t a l s o has p r o d u c e d c a s e s e m b r a c i n g t h e m a j o r i t y r u l e . 28 1110993 P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s c l a i m a l l e g i n g an i n t e n t i o n a l a s s a u l t a n d h i s claims a l l e g i n g negligence b e c a u s e t h e c l a i m s a r e b a s e d on two s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t a c t s . T h i s argument m i s u n d e r s t a n d s t h e r a t i o n a l e o f Auto-Owners. First, acts i t appears that there by t h e i n s u r e d Auto-Owners found: were i n f a c t two d i f f e r e n t i n Auto-Owners. "'While the claims As t h e t r i a l court i n i n the underlying case i n v o l v e b o t h i n t e n t i o n a l and u n i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s , t h e defendant has provided claims.'" not case law s u p p o r t i n g the n o n s e v e r a b i l i t y of the I d . a t 1080 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The t r i a l court d i d say t h a t t h e case i n v o l v e d a l t e r n a t i v e l e g a l t h e o r i e s or c a u s e s o f a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e same a c t ; i t s a i d t h a t t h e complaint acts." alleged "both i n t e n t i o n a l acts and u n i n t e n t i o n a l The c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d i n A u t o - O w n e r s i n v o l v e d a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t he a l l o w e d o t h e r f r a t e r n i t y members t o commit intentional This acts and t h a t he h i m s e l f committed C o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t s e p a r a t e a c t s were such acts. involved: "We also agree w i t h the t r i a l court that although the claims i n the underlying action alleged both i n t e n t i o n a l and u n i n t e n t i o n a l acts, those c l a i m s were n o t s e v e r a b l e so as t o o b l i g a t e A m e r i c a n C e n t r a l t o p r o v i d e a d e f e n s e a n d i n d e m n i t y as t o some c l a i m s b u t n o t as t o o t h e r s . " 29 1110993 A u t o - O w n e r s , 739 So. 2d a t 1082 ( e m p h a s i s That s a i d , however, t h e u n d e r l y i n g A u t o - O w n e r s were n o t s e v e r a b l e present case: there 1 3 reason the claims i n i s e x a c t l y t h e same as i n t h e was o n l y one s e t o f i n d i v i s i b l e s u f f e r e d b y t h e v i c t i m o f an a s s a u l t . be added). injuries Those i n j u r i e s s e v e r e d and a l l o c a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t causes, whether cannot those "causes" are separate l e g a l t h e o r i e s or "claims" relating to the combined t o same a c t o r a r e a c t u a l l y s e p a r a t e a c t s cause the i n j u r i e s . Owners, just This simple as i t i s t r u e fact i n this that was case true in Auto- and i n dozens o f i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e cases throughout the country. Price-Williams also seeks to distinguish Gregory, i n v o k i n g t h e f a c t t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y , Howard, a l s o l a n d e d some blows t o P r i c e - W i l l i a m s during the assault. Price-Williams argues t h a t the e x c l u s i o n p r o v i s i o n a t i s s u e a p p l i e s only t o i n j u r i e s a r i s i n g o u t o f any a c t o f a s s a u l t a n d b a t t e r y "by any Moreover, each o f t h e cases c i t e d i n Auto-Owners i n support of the conclusion that the claims there were nonseverable involved claims of negligent supervision or other n o n i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s b y an e m p l o y e r a n d s e p a r a t e i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s b y an e m p l o y e e . See i d . , c i t i n g C o m m e r c i a l U n i o n I n s . Cos. v. S k y , I n c . , 810 F. Supp. 249, 255 (W.D. A r k . 1 9 9 2 ) ; O l d R e p u b l i c I n s . Co. v. C o m p r e h e n s i v e H e a l t h C a r e A s s o c s . , 786 F. Supp. 629 (N.D. Tex. 1 9 9 2 ) ; a n d B o a r d o f Educ. v . C o n t i n e n t a l I n s . Co., 198 A.D.2d 816, 604 N.Y.S.2d 399 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . 13 30 1110993 insured or "insured additional insured" or a d d i t i o n a l This attempt of m u l t i p l e injury. the and Breland v. distinguish regarding separate c a u s e an jointly Howard is not an Gregory j o i n t and ignores several basic liability t o r t f e a s o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g to a s i n g l e , i n d i v i s i b l e If combine t o that insured." to p r i n c i p l e s o f t o r t law and acts indivisible severally liable Rich, 69 So. 3d of two or more tortfeasors i n j u r y , then a l l actors for 803, that 825 entire injury. ( A l a . 2011) are See (observing t h a t "'where s e p a r a t e c a u s e s a c t c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y t o p r o d u c e a g i v e n r e s u l t , the causes of i n j u r y are c o n c u r r e n t w i t h i n the rule for the D a v i s o n v. M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y , 456 making separate wrongdoers r e s u l t a n t i n j u r y ' " (quoting So. 2d 14, 26 So. 2d 950, negligence a (Ala. 1984))); 953 o f two (Ala. Civ. 3d 722, and 729 Holcim act or App. 2005) liable C i t y of Athens, (stating that (US), combine t o r e s u l t i n I n c . v. O h i o Cas. So. ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t " [ u ] n d e r Alabama law proximately 31 I n s . Co., are 38 several l i a b i l i t y , acts 938 "[t]he i n j u r y f o r which both t o r t f e a s o r s ( A l a . 2009) g o v e r n i n g j o i n t and negligent F r a n k l i n v. o r more t o r t f e a s o r s may single, indivisible liable"); equally '[a] t o r t - f e a s o r whose contribute i n causing an 1110993 injury may (quoting (Ala. be h e l d liable Nelson Bros., f o r the e n t i r e r e s u l t i n g l o s s ' " I n c . v. B u s b y , 513 So. 2d 1015, 1017 1987) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) ) ) . In o t h e r words, i t i s t h e i n d i v i s i b l e nature that i s the focus o f an i n j u r y o f t o r t l a w i n d e c i d i n g t h a t more t h a n one a c t o r o r a c t i s t o be deemed r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a g i v e n l o s s . A n d it i s t h i s s i n g l e , i n d i v i s i b l e nature this case that i s dispositive. of the b o d i l y i n j u r y i n Aside c o m b i n i n g c a u s e may have b e e n i n v o l v e d , the i n d i v i d u a l the v i c t i m . As t h e m a i n o p i n i o n a p t l y n o t e s , resulting injury and related whatever other the undeniable remains t h a t the insureds from assaulted fact and b a t t e r e d i f portions of hospital bills could be a t t r i b u t e d s o l e l y t o t h e e a r l i e r n e g l i g e n t a c t i o n s o f Dean a n d Baber i n n o t p r o m u l g a t i n g a risk-management p o l i c y o r t o t h e a c t s o f Howard d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l a t t a c k on P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ( t h e latter being alleged by Price-Williams t o have been made p o s s i b l e b y t h e p r i o r n e g l i g e n t a c t i o n s o f Dean a n d B a b e r ) , w o u l d have a d i f f e r e n t c a s e . In School Board of Education We do n o t have t h a t of East we case. Syracuse-Minoa Central D i s t r i c t v. C o n t i n e n t a l I n s u r a n c e Co., 198 A.D.2d 816, 604 N.Y.S.2d 399 (1993), the court 32 applied policy language 1110993 l i m i t i n g " c o v e r a g e " t o " a c c i d e n t s " as w e l l as an e x c l u s i o n f o r bodily injury occurring during the course of the injured p a r t y ' s employment. I n t h a t c a s e , v e r y much as i n t h i s one, the insured pinned i t s hopes w r o n g d o i n g on i t s p a r t t h a t , b a s i s f o r coverage. f o r coverage upon certain s t a n d i n g alone, might p r o v i d e a Those a r g u m e n t s were r e j e c t e d w i t h s o u n d r e a s o n i n g a p p a r e n t l y embraced by t h i s C o u r t i n Auto-Owners: "The a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t ... do n o t c o n s t i t u t e an ' o c c u r r e n c e ' w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f i t s g e n e r a l l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y . An ' o c c u r r e n c e ' i s d e f i n e d i n t h e p o l i c y as an ' a c c i d e n t ' There i s n o t h i n g a c c i d e n t a l about the charges c o n t a i n e d i n the complaint [citations omitted]. Sexual harassment, l i k e s e x u a l abuse a n d c h i l d a b u s e , i s i n t e n t i o n a l i n nature [ c i t a t i o n s omitted]. While the complaint contains allegations that 'the D i s t r i c t knew o r s h o u l d have known o f t h e c o m p l a i n e d of conduct' and ' f a i l e d t o s t o p o r p r e v e n t such conduct,' those allegations do n o t change t h e gravamen of the complaint from one alleging i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s and v i o l a t i o n s o f F e d e r a l a n d S t a t e s t a t u t e s t o one i n v o l v i n g n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t ( s e e , e.g., New Y o r k C a s . I n s . Co. v . Ward, 139 A.D.2d 922, 527 N.Y.S.2d 913 [ ( 1 9 8 8 ) ] ) . " 198 A.D.2d a t 817, 604 N.Y.S.2d a t 400. Likewise i n this committed acts directly injured c a s e , t h e argument t h a t Dean a n d B a b e r separate from the a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y t h a t P r i c e - W i l l i a m s and t h a t by those previous acts of negligence they " f a i l e d t o stop or prevent" t h e i r 33 own 1110993 intentional assault and battery of the v i c t i m or the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f a t h i r d p a r t y i n t h a t subsequent a s s a u l t and battery must fail. In this regard, o f Texas I find law, which h e l p f u l the following explanation I submit different i s no t h a n t h e l a w o f Alabama and b a s i c a l l y e v e r y other state: "Texas c o u r t s ... when d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an e x c l u s i o n i n an i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t a p p l i e s , e x a m i n e the f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s showing t h e o r i g i n o f t h e damage[] r a t h e r t h a n t h e l e g a l t h e o r i e s a s s e r t e d b y the p l a i n t i f f . D u n c a n v i l l e D i a g n o s t i c C t r . , I n c . v. A t l a n t i c L l o y d s I n s . Co. o f T e x . , 875 S.W.2d 788, 789 ( T e x . A p p . - E a s t l a n d 1994, w r i t d e n i e d ) ; ... Burlington I n s . Co. v . M e x i c a n A m e r i c a n Unity C o u n c i l , I n c . , 905 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Tex. App.-San A n t o n i o 1 9 9 5 , no w r i t ) (same). Where t h e l e g a l claims asserted by the p l a i n t i f f s are not independent and m u t u a l l y exclusive, but rather r e l a t e d t o a n d d e p e n d e n t upon e x c l u d e d c o n d u c t , t h e c l a i m s a r e n o t c o v e r e d , e v e n i f a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t an i n s u r e d who d i d n o t h i m s e l f engage i n t h e p r o h i b i t e d c o n d u c t . B u r l i n g t o n I n s . Co., 905 S.W.2d a t 3 6 2 . " C a n u t i l l o I n d e p . Sch. P i t t s b u r g h , Pa., D i s t . v . N a t i o n a l U n i o n F i r e I n s . Co. o f 99 F.3d 695, 703-04 ( 5 t h C i r . 1996) ( e m p h a s i s added). The not same i s t r u e independent excluded here. The " l e g a l c l a i m s ... , b u t [ a r e ] r e l a t e d t o a n d d e p e n d e n t upon conduct," i . e . , the a s s a u l t d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s asserted are and b a t t e r y . The o n l y c a s e a n d t h e T e x a s c a s e q u o t e d above 34 1110993 (and most other cases addressing e x c l u s i o n i s deemed t o a p p l y this i n the other issue) i s that the cases t o bar a c l a i m a g a i n s t a n e g l i g e n t i n s u r e d even t h o u g h t h e a c t u a l a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y was n o t c o m m i t t e d by t h a t i n s u r e d . assault seek and b a t t e r y was committed recovery. 35 Here, t h e a c t u a l by t h e same i n s u r e d s who

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.