Steven Scaglione v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins Co, No. 22-2497 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Following a shooting at a bar in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, Plaintiff, who was injured as a bystander, obtained a $2.5 million judgment against the bar’s owner and operator, Steven Scaglione. Plaintiff thereafter filed this equitable-garnishment claim against Scaglione and his insurer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (Acceptance). Scaglione filed cross-claims against Acceptance, alleging that it had, in bad faith, failed to defend or indemnify him and breached its fiduciary duty. Acceptance filed motions to dismiss both Plaintiff’s and Scaglione’s claims, which the district court granted based on the applicability of an assault-and-battery exclusion in Scaglione’s policy. In this consolidated appeal, both Plaintiff and Scaglione assert that the district court erred in dismissing their claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court did not suggest that the assault-and-battery exclusion did not apply solely because the purported victim was not the target. Accordingly, the court rejected this argument and concluded that the unambiguous policy language covers claims of injuries sustained by innocent bystanders arising out of an assault and battery. The court thus concluded that the policy exclusion applies. Further, the court concluded that Scaglione’s negligence was not independent and distinct from the excluded assault and battery. The court explained that the concurrent-proximate-cause rule thus does not apply, and, therefore, the exclusion bars coverage under the policy. Without coverage, Plaintiff and Scaglione cannot state a claim. The district court thus did not err in granting the motions to dismiss.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. In these combined appeals, the victim of a shooting in Scaglione's bar sought to enforce a state court judgment against Scaglione and Acceptance, his insurer; Scaglione alleged the insurer had acted in bad faith in refusing to defend or settle the matter and breached its fiduciary duty. The insurer moved to dismiss the claims, citing a provision in the policy in question barring coverage for assault-and-battery claims, and the district court dismissed the claims, finding the victim's claims clearly arose out an assault and battery a patron committed in the bar. The district court did not err in dismissing the matter, as the exclusion was not limited to an assault or battery committed by Scaglione or his employees, and applied to claims by innocent bystanders injured in the course of an assault and battery committed on the premises; Scaglione's negligence in failing to screen patrons for weapons was not independent and distinct from the excluded assault and battery, the concurrent-proximate cause rule does not apply, and coverage is barred.
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.