Essex Insurance Company v. Michigan Skatelands, Inc., D/B/A Royal Skateland, Cross-Appellee
Docket: 93-2132
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; October 21, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Essex Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment action against its insured, Michigan Skatelands, Inc., following a violent incident at Royal Skateland in Wayne County, Michigan, where patrons were assaulted by armed individuals. Essex Insurance sought to avoid defending Michigan Skatelands in subsequent lawsuits filed by injured patrons on the grounds that the claims fell under the Policy's exclusions for "Assault and Battery" and "Criminal Acts." The insurance policy defined an "occurrence" as an unexpected accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex Insurance, concluding that the intentional shootings did not qualify as an "occurrence" under the Policy. However, the appellate court determined that the assailants' actions were not expected or intended by Michigan Skatelands, thereby constituting an "occurrence" as per the Policy's definition. The court noted that the assault and battery exclusion's use of "or" between "act" and "omission" did not create ambiguity, emphasizing that the policy terms must be enforced as written. Skatelands' interpretation of the assault and battery exclusion in its insurance policy is deemed inadequate, as it fails to contest the exclusion of claims related to the prevention or suppression of such acts by the insured or associated parties. The lawsuits against Skatelands, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and fraud due to unsafe premises, fall under this exclusion since they relate to omissions that could have prevented the assault and battery incidents involving Harris and Evans. Therefore, the claims are excluded as they arise from actions connected to the prevention of the assault. The court acknowledges that while the actions of Harris and Evans constitute an "occurrence," Essex Insurance is not obligated to defend or indemnify Skatelands due to the explicit assault and battery exclusion in the policy. The district court's determination that the exclusion is clear and unambiguous is upheld, rejecting Skatelands' claim of ambiguity. Furthermore, the court emphasizes that the nature of the underlying claims should focus on the basis of injury rather than the legal labels assigned to them. Since the claims arise from tortious conduct, the assault and battery exclusion applies, leading to the affirmation of the district court's ruling. The court does not address other policy exclusions since the assault and battery exclusion alone suffices to deny coverage.