When Exclusions Crash into Coverage: Assault & Battery Trends in Current Insurance Coverage Litigation

• By: Nancy Germond
• August 18, 2026

Assault and battery (A&B) claims are increasing, despite a reduction in violent crime in the United States. These claims arise not only in bars, clubs, taverns, and entertainment venues; they also increasingly arise in residential multifamily properties. According to a 2025 article in Business Insurance, retail, hospitality and multifamily property owners are finding it difficult to find coverage that includes A&B coverage, especially multifamily complexes.  

This reluctance to insure risks for A&B is also due to incidences involving sexual assault. A 2024 $177 million Hyatt case where a security guard using a master key to gain room access assaulted a guest shows the difficulty insurers face in this era of nuclear verdicts.  

According to the law firm Goldberg Segalla, A&B exclusions bear great weight in how coverage may apply. In a recent webinar, they discussed how A&B exclusions work, how the defense bar faces challenges by the plaintiff bar and explained some disputes that can help agents better understand and explain coverage terms to their clients.  

A “high degree of emotion” surrounds these cases,” the webinar hosts reminded listeners. Therefore, carriers should do thorough investigations and work with legal counsel to mount a strong defense.  

Common A&B Scenarios 

A&B allegations can arise from a variety of issues, including the following.  

• Patrons overserved liquor by establishments or even hosted employee get togethers. 

• Physical confrontations when unruly patrons find themselves evicted from an establishment.  

• Fights at habitational risks, which often result in premises liability claims. These can arise from a patron-on-patron tavern fight, for example, to an ejection and battle with on-site security.  

Often, “There’s another fight around the corner” once the initial fight is over, and that is a coverage fight, according to the presenters.  

Allegations Arising from A&B Claims 

When assaults occur, various negligence allegations will arise. These include the following.  

• Dram Shop Act violations 

• Negligent supervision allegations 

• Negligent hiring allegations 

• Negligent training allegations 

• Negligent security allegations 

• Premises liability negligence 

Even inadequate lighting can be a negligence allegation in assaults cases. Depending on the circumstances, plaintiffs often name bouncers, bartenders, hotels, or multifamily housing employees, as well as the named insured as defendants. 

Why A&B Exclusions? 

Why do policies such as the commercial general liability policy contain an A&B exclusion?  

The insurance industry designs coverage to “dovetail,” forcing coverage to the most appropriate line of coverage. When other coverage is available for certain claims that may arise, such as an employment injury or an intentional act where an employee assaults a coworker, the intent of the policy is to push coverage toward other, more appropriate, coverage. That could be workers’ compensation, or it could be a standalone A&B policy.  

Carriers craft the A&B exclusion in any liability policy to eliminate coverage for an A&B claim, including its defense costs and any settlements. However, many wholesalers and surplus lines of carriers offer standalone A&B coverage. Fair warning: When placing surplus lines coverage, it is critical to read both the policy definitions and the exclusions since policy provisions may diverge from an ISO language often seen in standard lines policies.  

Assault and Battery Exclusions 

Causation language, language in insurance coverage that triggers a compensable loss, is important in defending A&B claims. Causation language can be broad or narrow.  

Often undefined in policies, “arising out of” and “arising from” language leaves the courts to interpret that language as “caused by,” which is stricter language than “arising out of” language.  

According to the presenters, there is a shift toward a “but for” standard:  if an assault or battery triggered the chain of events leading to injury, the exclusion usually applies. While that is good news for carriers, your insureds may find themselves without coverage depending on their policy’s provisions.  

In one case, CMS Ventures v. American European Insurance Company, a broadly worded or ambiguous exclusion determined coverage. The carrier argued for a broad reading of the exclusion. However, the courts found that the exclusions drafted by the carrier did not allow them to deny coverage because other acts of negligence by the insured (premises liability, negligent hiring) contributed to the incident and therefore triggered coverage. 

According to the speakers, “arising out of” language may not be effective in denying coverage, especially if not defined in the policy. Agents should review exclusions and definitions to understand coverage scope. They opine that the courts are leaning toward a “but for” standard: “If an assault and/or battery triggered the sequence of events that ultimately led to the injury, the typical exclusion will likely applicable,” they said. 

However, remember that while this is beneficial for carriers, it can be unwelcome news for your policyholders should they have an assault claim lodged against them.  

The independent negligence rule is often referred to as the concurrent causation doctrine means that two or more separate negligent acts may combine to influence an injury. In that case, both parties can be jointly and severally liable.  

The example cited is shown below.  

• A fight breaks out, patrons flee; someone slips on a drink spilled earlier and is injured by the fall — not the fight itself. 

• Plaintiffs argue concurrent, independent causes to escape the exclusion. 

• A strong exclusion using “in any way involving” language can still bar coverage unless the injury truly occurred independently of the A&B. 

According to the presenters, “’In any way’ language can preclude coverage.” 

They went on to say, “Having a clear definition in the policy is a major defense advantage. When undefined, parties argue over meaning, often turning to criminal codes for a definition of ‘intent.’” 

This reminds agents they should familiarize themselves with both definitions and exclusionary language in the policies they sell so they can better inform their clients of potential coverage limitations.  

How Plaintiffs Try to Defeat A&B Exclusions 

Often the initial pleading is substandard, according to the presenters. When discovery provides more documentation including the policy language and exclusions, plaintiff attorneys often amend their complaint, “pleading around the exclusion by reframing the claim, for example, emphasizing negligence over the assault.” 

However, warned the presenters, “Pleadings can go only so far in creating coverage.” They recommend counsel remind the court that “They must enforce, not write, insurance contracts.”  

The Reasonable Expectations Doctrine 

Frequently, the doctrine of reasonable expectations arises in these types of claims. This is the argument that when the policyholder bought the coverage, their expectation was that the agent or underwriter understood the nature of their business and that coverage would apply.  

However, this application varies by state and according to the presenters, it is narrowly applied. A warning for agents: This is where your carrier may argue that the agent (you), not the carrier, made the coverage representations.  

Defense counsel for the carrier will also use facts to prevent its application, including the following. 

• The insured did not read the policy 

• Prior claims exist with similar coverage declinations 

• Application communications 

• The agent, not the carrier, made the representations regarding coverage 

The underwriting file and the agent’s file may well be instrumental in these types of allegations. The application is important, and any sign that the retail agent initially requested A&B coverage, but once the cost for A&B coverage came in, the insured balked.  

Strong agency documentation that the agent offered and the client refused A&B coverage due to premium or other reasons can be a safety valve should this allegation occur.  

Other Legal Arguments 

Two other arguments your clients may encounter include the illusory coverage argument and the public policy argument.  

Illusory coverage is a narrow allegation that is relatively easy to defeat, according to the presenters. The assertion is that the policy delivers no genuine protection. However, if there is any other type of coverage available under the policy, the policy is not illusory. Usually only if there is evidence that a part of premium went for a specific coverage that does not exist does this become difficult to defend.  

The public policy argument alleges that the exclusion conflicts with public policy. The defense argument in tavern cases is that a liquor liability coverage statute does not equal public policy.  

Conclusion: Key Takeaways 

A&B exclusions are powerful but heavily litigated — the exact wording drives outcomes. 

Here is solid advice for agents.  

• Document underwriting conversations, confirming coverage the client bought. 

• Be clear with clients about what an A&B exclusion does and does not cover. 

• Carriers may assert your representations, not the underwriter’s, established coverage. Protect yourself from representation-based liability through careful documentation.  

For insurers, precise, well-defined exclusionary language is their strongest defense, the presenters said. Plaintiff’s counsel will undoubtedly assert concurrent causation and attempt to plead around any exclusions once policy language becomes available to them. 

For agents, understanding these exclusions now helps prevent costly disputes later. To register and view this complimentary recorded webinar, click this link.  

Copyright © 2026, Big “I” Virtual University. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be used or reproduced in any manner without the prior written permission from Big “I” Virtual University. For further information, contact nancy.germond@iiaba.net.