Liquor Liability Exclusion Found Not To Apply Against a Multi-Claim Complaint

In the case of AIX Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Legion Department of Pennsylvania, No. 2:21-CV-023380-MAK (E.D. Pa. March 14, 2022 Kearney, J.), the court addressed a declaratory judgment action regarding coverage potentially owed to an American Legion relative to an underlying personal injury claim filed by a Plaintiff who was injured by a gun shot wound in an American Legion after the assailant was allegedly served alcohol while that assailant was allegedly visibly intoxicated.

After the court’s review of the liquor liability exclusion contained in the policy and determined that certain claims asserted by the Plaintiff could potentially fall within such coverages allowed by the policy, the court found that the exclusion at issue did not apply in this matter involving a multi-claim complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 6, 2022).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reviews Rules of Liability for Fights on Premises

In the case of Reason v. Kathryn’s Corner Thrift Shop, 2017 Pa. Super. 266 (Pa. Super. Aug. 17, 2017 Solano, J., Lazarus, J., Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Solano, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants in a matter arising out of a case in which the Plaintiff was involved in a fight with a third party in the Defendant’s store.  

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that there was no evidence of any past violence or issues with or by the third party in the store.  The court also noted that the store satisfied its duties under the law to aid the Plaintiff by calling the police.  

In so ruling, the appellate court noted that the Pennsylvania Courts have held that a business is not required to act as  policeman in the face of an ongoing assault within its store and that the store satisfied its duty to aid its business invitee by calling 911 or other professional assistance.  

The records reveal that, in addition to calling 911, an employee in the store eventually broke up the fight outside the store where a crowd had gathered.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.  

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 12, 2017). 

Coverage/Defense for Injuries Resulting from Bar Fight Denied Under Liability Policy

In a recent Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of Penn-Patriot Ins. Co. v. Williams, PICS Case No. 16-0659 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 9, 2016 Djerassi, J.), the court ruled in a declaratory judgment action on an issue of coverage brought by a liability insurance company seeking a judicial declaration that the insurance company need not provide coverage to its insured Defendants in a matter arising out of a fight that occurred at the insured's café.  

According to the Opinion, the carrier denied coverage based upon the terms of its policy and an endorsement entitled “Assault or Battery General Liability Exclusion.”  

The trial court also noted that the policy provided coverage for bodily injury or property damages caused by an “occurrence” which was defined as an accident.   

Also, an endorsement in the policies expressly stated that the policy “does not apply to liability for damages because of ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’…medical expense arising out of an ‘assault,’ ‘battery,’ or ‘physical altercation’” in, near, or away from the premises, whether or not caused by or involving the insured, the insured’s employees, patrons, or other persons.  

The policy also excluded coverage for any act or omission related to the prevention of such incidents, failure to warn, and/or negligent hiring, training, and/or supervision. 

The court ruled that the factual allegations pertaining to the fight that occurred on the premises did not trigger coverage under the policy at issue.   The court found that the injuries to the injured party arose from the blows by hands, fists, and a bottle, not from any acts of negligence.   

The court also emphasized that the allegations of the Defendant’s failure to warn, employed competent staff, train employees, or supervise employees were expressly excluded from coverage by the language of the policy.  

Accordingly, the court entered a declaratory judgment finding that no coverage or defense need be provided to the Defendants in this matter.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

I send thanks to Attorney Jay Fulmer of Philadelphia for securing a copy of this decision for dissemination.   

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 31, 2016).