Admiral Insurance Company v. Price-Williams
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Ryan Price-Williams sued Admiral Insurance Company and Gabriel Dean and Charles Baber in Circuit Court pursuant to Alabama's direct-action statute. Both Dean and Baber were alleged by Price-Williams to be covered under a commercial general-liability insurance policy Admiral had issued the national Kappa Sigma fraternity to which Dean and Baber belonged. Price-Williams alleged that Admiral was obligated to pay a judgment that had been entered in favor of Price-Williams and against Dean and Baber in a previous action. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Price-Williams and against Admiral, holding that the Admiral policy provided coverage to Dean and Baber for the negligent and/or wanton acts that formed the basis of the underlying action. Price-Williams sued Admiral after obtaining a judgment against Dean and Baber, who he alleged were insured by Admiral under a policy Admiral had issued to Kappa Sigma, by virtue of their positions as officers of the local chapter of Kappa Sigma. Following another bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Price-Williams, obligating Admiral to fulfill the judgment entered against Dean and Baber in the underlying action. Because the evidence presented at trial supported the trial court's conclusion that Admiral's policy with Kappa Sigma provided liability coverage to Dean and Baber with regard to the negligence and wantonness claims tried in the underlying action, the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment.
Download PDF
REL: 01/11/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Court (CV-09-901938) STUART, Justice. Ryan Gabriel pursuant P r i c e - W i l l i a m s sued A d m i r a l Dean and C h a r l e s Insurance Baber i n t h e Mobile Company a n d Circuit Court t o Alabama'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 . 1110993 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 covered 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 Price-Williams by Dean and action"). a judgment i n holding that Dean and had Baber f o r 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 § 2 7 - 2 3 - 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 underlying wanton action. We acts that formed the basis of the Price-Williams was attacked and affirm. I. On January 31, 2004, 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 South Alabama chapter chapter i s h e r e i n a f t e r of Kappa Sigma the U n i v e r s i t y i n Mobile (the r e f e r r e d t o as "Kappa Nu," local while n a t i o n a l f r a t e r n i t y i s r e f e r r e d t o as " K a p p a S i g m a " ) . Williams $27,145. three On Kappa i n c u r r e d m e d i c a l expenses of November Nu, and 28, Dean, the M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t . b a s e d on wantonness claims the 2005, Price-Williams Baber, and Michael on asserted Dean's and Kappa Howard, assault, the in negligence Baber's and/or failure as t o implement the risk-management program 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 , alleged, sued P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s complaint sought 2 a s s a u l t and based o f f i c e r s o f Kappa Nu Williams Price- approximately 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 recovery the s u f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t , p e r m a n e n t i n j u r i e s as a r e s u l t o f t h e a s s a u l t and Sigma, of would have either which program, P r i c e 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. 1482 (9th ed. a self-insured retention r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the defense See g e n e r a l l y B l a c k ' s Law 2009) ( d e f i n i n g "self-insured clause, Dictionary retention" " [ 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 by an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y and the insurer retained will i t s own pay counsel, which However, t h a t c o u n s e l d i d n o t neither Sigma represented before therefore Kappa Nu. r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r Dean o r B a b e r , o f 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 t h e i r s t a t u s Baber, also Kappa as covered t h a t u s u [ a l l y ] must be p a i d benefits"). of and Howard as o f f i c e r s of never Kappa Nu. retained c o m p l a i n t , or appeared i n the counsel, a c t i o n , and In fact, answered a default Dean, the judgment 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 Sigma 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 assault v i o l a t e d t h e Kappa Sigma code o f c o n d u c t . 3 4 1110993 was accordingly entered also entered jury t r i a l remaining i n favor A summary j u d g m e n t o f Kappa Sigma, and, b e g a n on November 17, defendant. After a g a i n s t them. by was the time the was the only 2008, Kappa Nu 4 c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s were made a t t h e 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 court the of the trial court settlement to agreement, withdraw his jury demand and 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 . court granted entered f a c t and the motion, d i s m i s s e d a 10-page o r d e r 5 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 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 . 4 ^Apparently, the trial judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d defendants. court set aside the default a g a i n s t the three individual 5 1110993 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 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 b r e a c h e s , [ 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 found i n 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 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 risk 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. introduced president, 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 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 was the second in command a t the 6 1110993 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 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. ... [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] 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 order 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 had 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 b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d o n l y a g g r a v a t e d t h e 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 had 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 c h a r g e o f m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e r a t t h e 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 the 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 , granted to 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 the 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 7 1110993 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 i n d i v i d u a l 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 [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] i n h i s 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 W i l l i a m s ] 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 t o [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] 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 d a m a g e [ ] 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 [ K a p p a N u ] 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 the settlement 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 8 Price-Williams agreement and, Price-Williams 1110993 had agreed t o release Kappa Nu m a i n t a i n e d , Dean only Kappa S i g m a and Kappa Nu to release and B a b e r i n t h e i r o r , as Kappa S i g m a , Kappa Nu, c a p a c i t i e s as a g e n t s o f 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 in favor judgment d e c i s i o n of the t r i a l to court, of this 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 for [Kappa Nu] d i d not represent the i n d i v i d u a l 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 h a d 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 i n d i v i d u a l 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 claims 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 o f the i n d i v i d u a l defendants t o the extent 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 place 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 h a d b e e n r e a c h e d ] , we c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l 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 n o t c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against the great weight of evidence." Kappa Sigma F r a t e r n i t y v. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , 40 So. 3d 683, 693 (Ala. 2009). On O c t o b e r 6, 2009, a p p r o x i m a t e l y two months b e f o r e d e c i s i o n i n Kappa Sigma was r e l e a s e d , P r i c e - W i l l i a m s 9 our initiated 1110993 the instant a c t i o n pursuant t o § 27-23-2, a l l e g i n g v i r t u e o f t h e i r s t a t u s as o f f i c e r s o f Kappa Nu, were additional liability the under insurance p o l i c y date that insureds of the Dean and Kappa S i g m a . On 6 Admiral were May 3, by Dean and B a b e r commercial general- Kappa Sigma h e l d w i t h A d m i r a l assault. Baber the that, filed covered 2011, a response under the the trial on denying policy held court conducted by a bench t r i a l ; however, A d m i r a l d i d not a t t e n d the t r i a l , having b e e n u n d e r t h e m i s t a k e n b e l i e f t h a t t h e c a s e w o u l d be decided through the submission of b r i e f s . absence, the B a b e r and evidence trial court Notwithstanding 7 proceeded to receive e x h i b i t s , to hear testimony d e p o s i t i o n s , and from the p a r t i e s i n attendance. Admiral's from documentary A d m i r a l and Price- W i l l i a m s t h e r e a f t e r submitted t r i a l b r i e f s i n support of t h e i r positions, and, on M a r c h 9, 2012, the t r i a l court entered 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 f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w entering a judgment in favor of Price-Williams. an and No 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 . 6 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 . 7 c o n t a c t e d by t h e t r i a l 10 court on 1110993 postjudgment Admiral motions filed were filed, i t s n o t i c e of appeal and, on April to t h i s 19, 2012, Court. II. In T r a v e l e r s So. 3d 338 I n d e m n i t y Co. ( A l a . 2011), f o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l an of C o n n e c t i c u t appeal by an v. M i l l e r , insurance 86 company on a c l a i m a s s e r t e d u n d e r § 27-23-2, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The p r i n c i p a l l e g a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s appeal i s whether, under the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , the trial court could properly conclude that [the i n s u r a n c e company] was b o u n d t o p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e t o [the insured] with respect to the occurrences d e s c r i b e d i n [the p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c o m p l a i n t . Because t h e r e were q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t r e g a r d i n g n o t i c e and coverage, the t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d testimony i n both o r a l and w r i t t e n f o r m b e f o r e e n t e r i n g i t s f i n a l judgment. Therefore, the ore tenus s t a n d a r d of review a p p l i e s : 'Where e v i d e n c e on an i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d b o t h o r a l l y and by d e p o s i t i o n , t h e o r e tenus r u l e a f f o r d s the t r i a l court's finding a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . ' H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . 'Under t h a t s t a n d a r d , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on oral t e s t i m o n y and a j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s a r e given a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . ' B e a v e r s v. C o u n t y o f W a l k e r , 645 So. 2d 1365, 1372 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . However, ' t h a t s t a n d a r d ' s p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s has no a p p l i c a t i o n t o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on q u e s t i o n s of law.' Id." 86 So. 3d considered at 341. The b o t h o r a l and trial court in w r i t t e n evidence, 11 this and case the ore also tenus 1110993 standard l i k e w i s e guides our review of Admiral's claims on appeal. III. Admiral first should be claims i s that he assault Admiral contains not 'personal act t h e gravamen o f received the bodily and b a t t e r y , and trial injury Kappa court's Price-Williams's Sigma's following exclusion: to 'bodily injury,' judgment as a r e s u l t the apply of policy an with "This insurance 'property damage,' i n j u r y , " o r ' a d v e r t i s i n g i n j u r y ' a r i s i n g o u t o f any of a s s a u l t insured." finding that because reversed illegal does argues that and/or b a t t e r y Thus, Admiral by any insured argues, the t r i a l coverage e x i s t e d because or a d d i t i o n a l court erred i t i s undisputed in that P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s 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 c o m m i t t e d by Dean and B a b e r . However, i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s a s s a u l t c l a i m , a l l e g e d claims of negligence and B a b e r ' s f a i l u r e Price-Williams a n d / o r w a n t o n n e s s b a s e d on Dean's t o implement the risk-management r e q u i r e d b y Kappa Sigma rules. Price-Williams program concedes that Dean's and B a b e r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a c t u a l a s s a u l t was n o t 12 1110993 c o v e r e d under the recognized this Admiral p o l i c y . The trial court likewise fact, stating: "38. The a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y exclusion is unambiguous 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 and B a b e r ' s c o n d u c t o f a s s a u l t i n g him. This e x c l u s i o n , h o w e v e r , 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 and b a t t e r y by Dean and Baber, not any injuries caused by M i c h a e l Howard ( s i n c e [ i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t ] 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 ) . Both Admiral and [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] agree t h a t three 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 - W i l l i a m s ] : Dean, B a b e r , and Howard. A l t h o u g h Dean and Baber's c o n d u c t 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 u n d e r t h e p o l i c y , t h i s e x c l u s i o n a r y c l a u s e does n o t a p p l y t o t h e damage[] c a u s e d by Howard's c o n d u c t . "39. In r e v i e w i n g the e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d , t h i s c o u r t concurs w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n i t s f i n a l j u d g m e n t [ i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n ] t h a t Dean and B a b e r ' s n e g l i g e n c e and w a n t o n n e s s i n f a i l i n g t o i m p l e m e n t a p r o p e r r i s k management p r o g r a m 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 Williams]. A c c o r d R.B.Z. v. W a r w i c k Dev. Co., 681 So. 2d 566, 569 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) (finding that i t was a j u r y q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a p a r t m e n t manager's f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w p r o p e r p o l i c i e s as t o who had access to keys to p l a i n t i f f ' s apartment f a c i l i t a t e d crime of sexually assaulting plaintiff). S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n i t s f i n a l judgment the t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e f r a t e r n i t y h o u s e was 'out o f c o n t r o l ' and created a dangerous environment for those a t t e n d i n g t h e F r i d a y n i g h t d r i n k i n g p a r t y on J a n u a r y 31, 2004, and t h a t had Dean and B a b e r p e r f o r m e d t h e i r l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s r e q u i r e d o f them as o f f i c e r s on b e h a l f o f t h e f r a t e r n i t y and e n f o r c e d a p r o p e r r i s k management p r o g r a m , t h e n [Price-Williams's] 13 1110993 i n j u r i e s w o u l d have b e e n m i n i m i z e d in the f i r s t instance. or never occurred "40. The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t Dean a n d B a b e r ' s n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness combined and c o n c u r r e d with Howard's conduct of assaulting [PriceW i l l i a m s ] , c a u s i n g one i n d i v i s i b l e i n j u r y t o [ P r i c e Williams]. Under A l a b a m a l a w , '"where separate causes a c t contemporaneously t o produce a given r e s u l t , the causes of i n j u r y a r e concurrent w i t h i n the r u l e making separate wrongdoers e q u a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e r e s u l t a n t i n j u r y . " ' B r e l a n d v. R i c h , 69 So. 3d 803, 825 ( A l a . 2011) ( q u o t i n g D a v i s o n v . M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y , 456 So. 2d 14, 26 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . The c o u r t a l s o f i n d s , as d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e underlying [action], that Dean and Baber's n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness p r o x i m a t e l y caused [ P r i c e W i l l i a m s ' s ] i n j u r i e s , [when] c o m b i n e d w i t h Howard's conduct of a s s a u l t i n g [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] . Finally, t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t Dean, B a b e r , a n d Howard a r e j o i n t t o r t f e a s o r s under Alabama law f o r purposes o f coverage under the p o l i c y Dean a n d B a b e r f o r t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e a n d w a n t o n n e s s , a n d Howard f o r h i s a s s a u l t on [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] . " Admiral injury not nevertheless on Dean's management was only one to provide the claims of negligence and Baber's program while failure excluding coverage and/or wantonness t o implement the r e l a t e d a risk- assault I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s argument, A d m i r a l c i t e s Auto-Owners Insurance 1078 there so as t o o b l i g a t e A d m i r a l f o r some c l a i m s claim. that and t h a t t h e a c t s c o m b i n i n g t o cause t h a t i n j u r y a r e severable based argues Co. v. A m e r i c a n C e n t r a l I n s u r a n c e ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , H o r a c e Mann I n s u r a n c e 14 Co., 739 So. 2d Co. v. D.A.C., 710 So. 1110993 2d 1274 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , a n d G r e g o r y v. W e s t e r n Insurance Co., 481 So. 2d 878 (Ala. 1985) . Each World of those c a s e s , however, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . In Auto-Owners, that i t was plaintiff's claims not this Court possible to intentional tort " s o as t o o b l i g a t e agreed with the t r i a l distinguish claims court between and u n i n t e n t i o n a l [the i n s u r e r ] to provide the tort a defense and 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 , " 739 So. 2d at 1082, a n d Civil Appeals concluded that exclusion" i n the an i n D.A.C., the Court "intentional-damages of p o l i c y p r e v e n t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f from r e c o v e r i n g even though the p l a i n t i f f had a l l e g e d both f r o m an i n s u r e r 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 t o r t c l a i m s b e c a u s e t h e c l a i m s were a l l b a s e d on the is same a c t s , possible alleging an 710 So. 2d a t 1276. I n t h i s case, however, i t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between intentional assault Price-Williams's and h i s claims claim alleging n e g l i g e n c e a n d / o r w a n t o n n e s s b e c a u s e t h o s e c l a i m s a r e b a s e d on two separate Williams, and d i s t i n c t acts the assault on Price- on t h e one h a n d , a n d Dean's a n d B a b e r ' s f a i l u r e t o i m p l e m e n t t h e r e q u i r e d Kappa Sigma r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m , on the other. 15 1110993 Moreover, i n Gregory, this Court affirmed a judgment declaring that a p l a i n t i f f ' s negligence and wantonness against received a bar based on a s s a u l t e d by a p a t r o n insurance injuries he being p o l i c y because the p o l i c y s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded assault and b a t t e r y instigation patrons, after a t t h e b a r were n o t c o v e r e d b y t h e b a r ' s claim a l l e g i n g "'bodily injury or property of claims or ... , direction o r any o t h e r insurance p o l i c y ) . whether of damage a r i s i n g o u t caused the insured, person.'" by or at the h i s employees, 481 So. 2d a t 878 The a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y (quoting e x c l u s i o n i n Kappa Sigma's p o l i c y , h o w e v e r , i s much n a r r o w e r ; claims or property forbodily injury any i t excludes damage " a r i s i n g only out of 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 b y any i n s u r e d o r a d d i t i o n a l insured." injuries Thus, I t i s undisputed that some of Price-Williams's a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e t o Howard, who was n o t an i n s u r e d . i n Gregory the p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y committed by a p a t r o n arose a n d were from an therefore n o t c o m p e n s a b l e b e c a u s e t h e y were s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e d b y t h e policy, while in part P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s i n j u r i e s were c a u s e d a t l e a s t by a p a r t y not insured therefore not excluded under t h e p o l i c y a n d were by t h e language o f t h e A d m i r a l p o l i c y . 16 1110993 Gregory i s t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . err by h o l d i n g Admiral t h a t the p o l i c y does not bar i n j u r i e s he makes two failure to court d i d exclusion from recovering that also fail t h a t t h e a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y 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 p r o g r a m were two A d m i r a l f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t Dean and not insureds Admiral the and/or wantonness. separate acts. additional in not r e c e i v e d as a r e s u l t o f a d d i t i o n a l arguments b e c a u s e t h e y do n o t r e c o g n i z e the Price-Williams Baber's negligence Admiral trial assault-and-battery from A d m i r a l f o r p e r s o n a l Dean's and The alleges, they under were scope of t h e i r d u t i e s at the not the Admiral acting time of the B a b e r were policy within the because, line assault: "In the case at bar, the p o l i c y language at i s s u e i s unambiguous. An i n s u r e d i s an o f f i c e r o f the f r a t e r n i t y ' a c t i n g w i t h i n the scope of t h e i r d u t i e s on b e h a l f o f t h e Named I n s u r e d . ' The trial c o u r t c o r r e c t l y f o u n d t h a t 'Dean and B a b e r ' 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 ] does n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h i s p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n o f an " i n s u r e d " u n d e r t h e policy.' However, i n a r e v e r s a l , t h e t r i a l court also found that Dean and Baber's failure to i m p l e m e n t a r i s k management p r o g r a m a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a s s a u l t was w i t h i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f t h e i r duties and, therefore, fell within the policy d e f i n i t i o n o f an i n s u r e d . T h i s i s n o n s e n s i c a l as a p e r s o n c a n ' t be b o t h w i t h i n and o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f h i s d u t i e s when c o m m i t t i n g t h e same a c t r e s u l t i n g i n t h e same i n j u r y . A g a i n , t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e t r i a l court's findings i s r e v e r s i b l e error." 17 and 1110993 Admiral's b r i e f , the t r i a l p. 32 c o u r t d i d not (emphasis added). f i n d Dean and In fact, however, B a b e r t o be b o t h w i t h i n and o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r d u t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o " t h e same act"; rather, the B a b e r were n o t r e g a r d t o one trial court correctly held a c t i n g w i t h i n the act that scope of t h e i r Dean and duties the a s s a u l t of P r i c e - W i l l i a m s but with were a c t i n g w i t h i n the scope of t h e i r d u t i e s w i t h r e g a r d to another act the required f a i l u r e to implement a risk-management program, by Kappa Sigma rules, at some point before as the assault. Admiral also argues that Dean's 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 p r o g r a m was Baber's not an failure "occurrence" u n d e r t h e p o l i c y b e c a u s e an " o c c u r r e n c e " i s g e n e r a l l y as "an accident" and, A d m i r a l a r g u e s , Dean and B a b e r defined intended to i n j u r e P r i c e - W i l l i a m s : "Furthermore, regardless of how one c h a r a c t e r i z e s the t o r t a l l e g e d l y causing i n j u r y to a n o t h e r , i f t h e i n j u r y was expected or intended, t h e n t h e p o l i c y does n o t p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e f o r t h e r e s u l t i n g damages. The A d m i r a l p o l i c y s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e s coverage f o r ' b o d i l y i n j u r y or property damage e x p e c t e d o r i n t e n d e d f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t of the i n s u r e d . ' In the c o n t e x t of g e n e r a l liability p o l i c i e s , t h i s C o u r t has routinely held that an o c c u r r e n c e i s d e f i n e d as s o m e t h i n g u n i n t e n d e d o r unexpected. H a r t f o r d Cas. I n s . Co. v. M e r c h a n t s & F a r m e r s Bank, 928 So. 2d 1006, 1011 (Ala. 2005). 18 to 1110993 Dean and B a b e r b o t h s t i p u l a t e d t o a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e of a s s a u l t i n t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e , w h i c h r e q u i r e s an i n t e n t t o cause s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o another person. T h e r e f o r e , Dean and B a b e r a d m i t t e d t h e y i n t e n d e d t o cause i n j u r y t o P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , which f a l l s s q u a r e l y w i t h i n the p o l i c y e x c l u s i o n . " Admiral's brief, conflates two assault was p. 39. separate not a Again, acts. covered It did not rule is occurrence i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t i t was court however, to assault. T h e r e i s no a for various Rather, risk-management evidence t h e named i n s u r e d , " e x p e c t e d to ignore the requirement that the Dean's and indicating they before t h a t Kappa implement i s p r o p e r l y viewed i n v o k i n g the as an accident or an the Sigma, officers a management p r o g r a m ; t h u s , Dean's and B a b e r ' s f a i l u r e regard court Baber's or intended" i t s l o c a l that trial trial program the reasons, n o t an a c c i d e n t , and t h e otherwise. implement argument undisputed n e c e s s a r i l y h e l d t h a t t h e " o c c u r r e n c e " was failure this riski n that occurrence policy. Admiral's trial court's j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e , A d m i r a l a r g u e s , there i s no evidence proximately final indicating caused by argument that is that the Price-Williams's injuries Dean's and Baber's negligence were and/or wantonness i n f a i l i n g t o implement a risk-management program. 19 1110993 For a l l that have done because appears, Admiral nothing to fraternity fighting argues, prevent or to such a program mitigate rules p r o h i b i t i n g unlawful a l r e a d y were i n e f f e c t at the the assault behavior time of the those The like assault, and Dean and B a b e r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e a s s a u l t w i t h o u t to would regard rules. t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t t h e r e was t h a t Dean's and Baber's negligence evidence a n d / o r w a n t o n n e s s was p r o x i m a t e cause of P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s i n j u r i e s , the stating: "A p r o p e r l y i m p l e m e n t e d r i s k management p r o g r a m would have e i t h e r prevented the assault from s t a r t i n g i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e o r , a t a minimum, s t o p p e d t h e a s s a u l t w i t h i n a few s e c o n d s a f t e r i t s t a r t e d , o b v i a t i n g t h e harm s u f f e r e d by [PriceW i l l i a m s ] as p r o v e n i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e . " "The c o u r t a l s o f i n d s , as d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n the underlying case, that Dean and Baber's n e g l i g e n c e and w a n t o n n e s s p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d [ P r i c e W i l l i a m s ' s ] i n j u r i e s , [when] c o m b i n e d w i t h Howard's conduct of a s s a u l t i n g [ P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ] . " It i s also case" evident t h a t the f a c t made by previously action from trial the quoted the references to "the c o u r t here agreed w i t h the trial supra, court the i n the trial stated: 20 underlying court i n the underlying f i n d i n g s of action. As underlying 1110993 "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 e v i d e n c e introduced during t r i a l , i n c l u d i n g the Executive O f f i c e r s ' M a n u a l ... a n d 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 that these defendants both negligently and w a n t o n l y breached their i n d i v i d u a l d u t i e s t o c r e a t e , 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 , a n d t h a t as a proximate consequence o f s a i d breaches, [ P r i c e W i l l i a m s ] was c a u s e d t o s u f f e r t h o s e i n j u r i e s a n d damage[] as p r o v e n i n t h i s c a s e . " A d m i r a l argues t h a t , case, the t r i a l cause w i t h o u t that courts there conclusion. i n both the underlying concluded being that any s p e c i f i c a c t i o n and t h i s there evidence proximate to support 8 "We have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t q u e s t i o n s and was of negligence p r o x i m a t e cause i n v o l v e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t h a t a r e w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e of the j u r y . " U n i o n Bank & T r u s t Co. v . E l m o r e C n t y . N a t ' l Bank, 592 So. 2d 560, 563 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . "A trial j u d g e , when a c t i n g as t h e f a c t f i n d e r , i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e same deference as a j u r y . " State v. J u d e , 686 So. 2d 528, 535 A d m i r a l a l s o a r g u e s t h a t i t was i m p r o p e r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n b e c a u s e A d m i r a l was not a p a r t y t o t h a t case. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s argues t h a t A d m i r a l waived t h i s o b j e c t i o n by f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t t o t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t when i t was i n t r o d u c e d at t r i a l . We t h i n k i t s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s a c t i o n w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g the f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . 8 21 1110993 ( A l a . C r i m . App. fact-finder's 1996). conclusions decide that issue total lack of reasonably 597 Mobile total a a matter evidence the So. resulting 2d Infirmary, instant as on proximate-cause of from case, law issue only the which we 1325, injury.'" 1328 fact-finder 456 So. 2d 14, 24 (quoting inferred that Dean's and injuries. Admiral P r i c e - W i l l i a m s because been responsible were, Moreover, Admiral for a in the the i n d i v i d u a l s who participants in to that would the thus, i t i s only t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y w o u l d have b e e n s i m i l a r l y a assault have Dean and assault. a r g u e s , Dean and B a b e r were u n r e s t r a i n e d existing rules against fighting; a caused P r i c e - i t s claim risk-management program fact, the failure r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m w o u l d n o t have p r e v e n t e d upon In v. c o u r t c o u l d have Baber's emphasizes Power t h a t t h e r e was implement a risk-management program p r o x i m a t e l y Williams's may Davison (Ala. 1984)). cannot agree w i t h A d m i r a l is a culpable G r e e n v. A l a b a m a ( A l a . 1992) a and i f "'there l a c k of evidence from which the t r i a l reasonably Baber reverse i n f e r a d i r e c t c a u s a l r e l a t i o n between the c o n d u c t and Co., Moreover, t h i s Court w i l l by reasonable unrestrained by any r u l e s i m p l e m e n t e d as p a r t o f a r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m . 22 1110993 However, t h i s argument does n o t account f o r the fact p r o p e r r i s k - m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m w o u l d have p u t o t h e r in that a safeguards place. The evidence supports o f J a n u a r y 31, the 2004, a p a r t y t o o k p l a c e a t t h e Kappa Nu c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , on the whether formal or i n f o r m a l f r a t e r n i t y house. Dean and both indulged i n a l c o h o l i c beverages at that p a r t y . Sigma Risk Management Handbook, evidence at both the t r i a l action, sets followed with out various regard night which was i n t h i s c a s e and general The Baber Kappa submitted i n the guidelines as underlying that should to p a r t i e s at which a l c o h o l i s be served, i n c l u d i n g the f o l l o w i n g : for "9. D e s i g n a t e s o b e r m o n i t o r s t o be any d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a t t h e p a r t y . responsible "Having monitors a l l o w s the chapter to h a n d l e any d i s r u p t i v e behavior, assist g u e s t s by c a l l i n g f o r t a x i s , h e l p c h e c k I D s , and g e n e r a l l y m a i n t a i n o r d e r . It is a l w a y s a g o o d i d e a t o have someone w i t h ultimate authority keeping a close, a t t e n t i v e eye on a l l t h e a c t i v i t i e s a t a Fraternity function. As with sober d r i v e r s , having r e s p o n s i b l e people accept t h i s r o l e i s of the utmost importance." The trial c o u r t c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y risk-management program, including 23 concluded the that a proper designation of a 1110993 responsible "sober w o u l d h a v e , as the monitor" trial to court a s s a u l t from s t a r t i n g i n the "generally stated, a s s a u l t w i t h i n a few Thus, was there evidence from o r , a t a minimum, the Dean's and trial court Baber'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 f o r Kappa Nu caused P r i c e - W i l l i a m s ' s i n j u r i e s . Dev. Co., that an 681 So. 2d 566, apartment c o n c e r n i n g who 569 See 1996) apartments a r e s u l t of t h a t p o l i c y Warwick (stating policies" "facilitated" c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t t e n a n t s by an i n d i v i d u a l who t h e i r a p a r t m e n t s as to proximately "lackadaisical had a c c e s s t o t e n a n t s ' 9 could failure a l s o R.B.Z. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. complex's the seconds a f t e r i t s t a r t e d . " which r e a s o n a b l y have i n f e r r e d t h a t order" "either prevented f i r s t instance stopped the maintain accessed failure). I n f a c t , the t r i a l c o u r t i n the u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n reached precisely this conclusion, stating: 9 "The fact that no risk management p r o g r a m or e d u c a t i o n had b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d o n l y a g g r a v a t e d t h e 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 had 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 order at the fraternity h o u s e as was r e q u i r e d under a r e a s o n a b l e risk management p r o g r a m w h i c h , i n t h e c o u r t ' s opinion, w o u l d have m i n i m i z e d a n d / o r p r e v e n t e d t h e a s s a u l t from o c c u r r i n g i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e . " (Emphasis added.) 24 1110993 IV. Price-Williams obtaining sued A d m i r a l a judgment against were i n s u r e d b y A d m i r a l p u r s u a n t t o § 27-23-2 Dean and B a b e r , who under a p o l i c y A d m i r a l he Sigma, b y 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 local chapter trial court obligating entered Admiral Sigma. Following a judgment to f u l f i l l adduced a t t r i a l supports the of P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , t h e judgment the t r i a l of the a bench t r i a l , i n favor Dean and B a b e r i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . alleged had i s s u e d t o Kappa o f Kappa after entered against Because the evidence court's conclusion that Admiral's p o l i c y w i t h Kappa Sigma p r o v i d e d l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e to and Dean wantonness affirm that Baber claims tried with regard to the i n the u n d e r l y i n g negligence a c t i o n , we and hereby judgment. AFFIRMED. M a l o n e , C . J . , and P a r k e r , Shaw, and W i s e , J J . , c o n c u r . 25
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.
