 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Graves v. CMC8/16/2005
es that: "If this policy contains the Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability Endorsement . . . , [which, as noted above, it did] Paragraph XI, Extended Bodily Injury Coverage, is deleted from that endorsement and rendered null and void."
6. When the trial judge granted Regis summary judgment, he found that the policy excluded Graves's negligent-training claim because the A&B Exclusion barred coverage for claims "arising in whole or in part from assault and battery." The trial judge reasoned that Graves's negligence claim was based on Froggy's failure to prevent the assault and battery, and was therefore "fundamentally premised on the assault and battery itself." On appeal, Graves contends that the policy provides coverage for his claim because the A&B Exclusion does not precisely state that claims for negligent "training" are encompassed by the exclusion and specifically excludes only claims for negligent "hiring, supervision, retention, or control." Graves argues that the exclusion is therefore at least ambiguous, and should be read narrowly to exclude a claim of negligent training. We review de novo the interpretation of language in contracts, including insurance contracts.
7. Although ambiguous language in an insurance policy is construed against the insurer, if the policy language is unambiguous, the parties are bound by its plain meaning. In addition, other jurisdictions have held that the language barring coverage for claims based on acts or omissions in connection with prevention, suppression, or result of an assault and battery unambiguously include actions for negligence in causing or failing to prevent the assault and battery.
8. The trial judge held that the A&B Exclusion barred coverage for injuries arising in whole or in part from an assault and battery. Based on that language, the trial judge reasoned that because Graves sought to recover for injuries arising from the assault and battery, the policy, by its terms, excluded his claim. The trial judge based his holding on decisions by other Delaware courts that reached similar conclusions. Although the trial judge's reasoning supports his conclusion, we base our decision today on a different analysis of the A&B Exclusion language that we believe more specifically addresses Graves's claim.
9. In addition to assault-and-battery claims, the A & B Exclusion eliminates coverage for claims alleging "any act or omission in connection with the prevention, suppression, or result of such acts." Graves's claim fits within this language because Graves alleges that Froggy's negligent failure to "train" its bouncer directly caused the assault and battery. The provision also excludes coverage for claims "asserting the alleged failure of the insured or his officers, employees, agents, or servants in the hiring, supervision, retention or control of any [employee]." Training of an employee is one specific element of the "supervision" and "control" of an employee. Therefore, Graves's claim for negligent training fits squarely and unambiguously within the exclusion.
10. Because the A&B provision excludes claims for negligent "supervision and control," we find Graves's claim that the policy is ambiguous to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we hold that the plain meaning of the A&B Exclusion bars coverage for Graves's claim based on negligent training.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|