Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. LeMons, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-061-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us       12‑P‑1543                                       Appeals Court   CERTAIN INTERESTED UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON  vs. RAYMOND C. LeMONS & others.[1]     No. 12‑P‑1543. Plymouth.     November 8, 2013.  ‑  June 4, 2014. Present:  Cohen, Katzmann, & Hanlon, JJ.   Insurance, General liability insurance, Illegal acts exclusion, Insurer’s obligation to defend, Construction of policy.  Assault and Battery.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 8, 2006.   The case was heard by Robert C. Rufo, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Julie E. Green (Paul J. Adams with her) for Raymond C. LeMons & another. Matthew Mahoney for the plaintiff.     KATZMANN, J.  This insurance coverage dispute arises out of an altercation that occurred in a tavern.  The issue is whether, in this declaratory judgment action, a Superior Court judge properly granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer upon concluding that the assault and battery exclusion in the policy relieved the insurer from any duty to defend or indemnify the tavern.  We affirm. Background.  On or about February 22, 2001, several unidentified people attacked and injured Raymond C. LeMons (Raymond), a defendant in this declaratory judgment action, while he was a patron of Luigi’s V, Inc., doing business as Gigi’s Pub (Gigi’s).  Gigi’s was insured through a commercial general liability policy issued by Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds, London (Lloyds).  The policy featured an assault and battery exclusion, which excluded coverage in the following situation: “a.  Bodily injury or property damage:   “(1) Expected or intended from the standpoint of any insured; or   “(2) Arising out of an assault or battery, provoked or unprovoked, or out of any act or omission in connection with prevention or suppression of an assault or battery, committed by any Insured or an employee or agent of the insured.“   Raymond C. LeMons and his wife, Kathleen E. LeMons (Kathleen) (collectively, LeMonses), brought suit against Gigi’s on February 23, 2004, to recover for bodily injuries and loss of consortium on a theory of negligent security by Gigi’s.  Lloyds initially assumed the defense of Gigi’s under a reservation of rights, but during the course of the litigation, Lloyds disclaimed its duty to defend or indemnify Gigi’s, citing the assault and battery exclusion in the policy.  On August 14, 2006, a Superior Court judge approved a settlement between the LeMonses and […]

Read more...