Close this search box.

Weapons exclusion clause puts the onus on bar owner after stabbing


Weapons exclusion clause puts the onus on bar owner after stabbing

A New Orleans bar attempted and failed to recoup its losses through a general liability policy after it was sued by two stabbing victims.

Following the stabbing of two patrons, a New Orleans bar attempted and failed to recoup its losses through a general liability policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that an insurance company doesn’t have to protect a bar against personal injury claims by patrons who were stabbed there as the establishment’s policy from the Houston Specialty Insurance Co. contained an exclusion for injuries caused by firearms or other weapons.

The policy defined weapons as “instruments of an offensive or defensive nature and include but are not limited to batons, bow or crossbow, arrows, knives, mace, stun guns, tasers or swords,” according to a per curiam opinion from a panel that included circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson.
“In November 2014, Shakeva Soniat and Serena Tribbit were having drinks at a bar on Bourbon Street in New Orleans called Funky 544. Ronesha Kelly, who at age 19 was too young to be served alcohol, had been drinking there. She began arguing with the two women, then stabbed them both,” the judges wrote. “In January 2015, Soniat and Tribbit sued Funky 544 in state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana, claiming that their injuries resulted from Funky 544’s negligence. The bar owner had a commercial general liability insurance policy with Houston Specialty Insurance Company. In July 2015, five months after Funky 544 notified it of the suit, Houston Specialty declined coverage.”

Neither the bar nor the insurance company answered the complaint. In February 2016, the state court awarded the two women $635,000; $480,000 for pain and suffering and $55,000 for medical expenses, the judges wrote.

“In March 2020, Funky 544 sued Houston Specialty in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, claiming a breach of the insurer’s contractual and statutory duties. Houston Specialty moved for summary judgment on those claims, arguing an exclusion in the policy applied to Soniat and Tribbit’s claims. This exclusion applies to injuries caused by the use of firearms or other weapons,” the judges said. They affirmed the district court’s ruling.

The district court did describe claims of negligence regarding failure to require identification and prevent underage drinking. But the ruling fact was the exclusion for injuries caused by weapons. If the women had been injured in some other way unrelated to the knife, the insurance company would have had a duty to defend. But not in this case, the judges ruled. So if a chandelier had fallen on them while they were being stabbed, that could have been a different story.

Interestingly, the court had another similar case to guide them. The judges said they found “helpful” the same ruling in Foquet v. Daiquiris & Creams of Mandeville, 2010.

“Judgment for the insurer was affirmed based on an exclusion in the policy for ‘bodily injury,’ … ‘arising out of or resulting from’ the use of a weapon,” the judges said. “Because the only injuries were related to the stabbing, the claims were based on plainly excluded conduct.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote