Barnie's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. United States Liability Insurance Co.
152 A.3d 613
| Me. | 2016Background
- On July 14, 2014 Maurice Beaulieu sued Barnie’s Bar alleging he was violently attacked by other patrons while on the premises and seeking damages for the bar’s negligence.
- Beaulieu alleged two bases for liability: (1) the bar had notice that an assault was imminent and failed to summon police or intervene; and (2) the bar created a dangerous circumstance by ejecting Beaulieu and his assailants into the parking lot simultaneously.
- Barnie’s Bar was insured by United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC) under a policy providing commercial general liability and liquor liability coverage.
- Both policy sections contained broad exclusions for claims “based upon any actual or alleged ‘assault’ or ‘battery’” and for suits whose operative facts constitute assault or battery, including failures to report or to prevent such acts.
- USLIC refused to defend Barnie’s Bar in the Beaulieu suit relying on those assault-and-battery exclusions; Barnie’s sued USLIC for declaratory relief and breach of contract.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment to USLIC; the Maine Law Court affirmed, holding the complaint’s allegations fell squarely within the policy exclusions so USLIC had no duty to defend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USLIC had a contractual duty to defend Barnie’s Bar in Beaulieu’s negligence suit | Beaulieu’s complaint alleges general negligence and a dangerous condition that could encompass conduct outside an assault/battery exclusion | The complaint’s allegations arise entirely from an assault/battery and thus are excluded under the policy’s broad assault-and-battery exclusions | No duty to defend; allegations fall squarely within the assault/battery exclusions |
| Whether the court may infer or consider extrinsic facts to create a duty to defend | Barnie’s argued possible facts at trial might bring the claim within coverage | Insurer argued duty to defend is determined solely by the underlying complaint and policy language, not speculation | Court refused to consider extrinsic facts or speculative theories; duty arises only from complaint and policy language |
| Whether post-event coverage changes (later-acquired assault/battery coverage) create a defense obligation | Barnie’s asserted later-obtained assault/battery coverage should give rise to a duty | USLIC insisted coverage at the time of the loss controls; later changes irrelevant | Court rejected claim based on post-event coverage (not discussed at length) |
| Whether exclusions should be narrowly construed in favor of insured here | Barnie’s urged liberal construction of the complaint in favor of insured to trigger defense | USLIC relied on strict construction of exclusions; complaint unambiguously alleges assault/battery | The court applied liberal view to complaint but strict construction to exclusions and found exclusions defeated any duty to defend |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 A.3d 876 (Me. 2011) (duty-to-defend de novo review; comparison test explained)
- Elliott v. Hanover Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1310 (Me. 1998) (favor insured when construing complaint; strict construction of exclusions)
- York Golf & Tennis Club v. Tudor Ins. Co., 845 A.2d 1173 (Me. 2004) (court will not speculate about unstated causes of action to create duty to defend)
- Lavoie v. Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 560 A.2d 570 (Me. 1989) (duty to defend triggered by intent to state covered claim)
- State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bragg, 589 A.2d 35 (Me. 1991) (rare circumstances where extrinsic facts may be considered)