Event Security v. Essex Insurance, 17-6073

Event Security, LLC hired off-duty police officer Paul Galyon to provide security at a 2013 concert in Oklahoma City; Galyon shot and killed Brian Simms during an encounter in a parking lot.
Redd (personal representative of Simms’s estate) sued Security alleging negligence, gross negligence, failure to train/supervise, and § 1983 liability as part of a joint venture theory with the city.
Security sought a declaratory judgment that its Essex insurance policy required Essex to defend and indemnify Security in Redd’s suit.
Essex relied on a policy exclusion that disclaims coverage for bodily injury arising out of assault and/or battery and for negligent hiring/training/supervision claims; the policy also disclaimed a duty to defend suits outside coverage.
The district court dismissed Security’s declaratory-judgment action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), holding the assault/battery and related exclusions barred coverage and thus no duty to defend or indemnify; Rule 59(e) motion was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy exclusion bars coverage for claims arising from the shooting	Redd and Security argued the claims are negligence/gross negligence and thus not barred; also contended the shooting could be accidental, not battery	Essex argued the assault/battery and negligent-hiring/training/supervision exclusions apply, so no coverage or duty to defend	Held: Exclusion applies; claims for failure to train/supervise are excluded and shooting amounted to battery, so no coverage or duty to defend/indemnify
Whether the district court erred by dismissing with prejudice (i.e., possibility of amendment)	Security/Redd argued factual/pleading issues could support coverage	Essex argued the policy language is unambiguous and dispositive	Held: Dismissal with prejudice affirmed because no amendment could establish coverage under the clear exclusion
Whether denial of Rule 59(e) motion was erroneous	Security/Redd reasserted prior arguments to alter judgment	Essex defended the final judgment	Held: Denial affirmed; appellant failed to show error or present new grounds and waived the issue by not developing arguments on appeal
Whether court needed to decide third-party plaintiff standing to sue insurer directly	Redd urged coverage determination regardless of party status	Essex argued Redd lacked direct-action rights under the policy	Held: Court did not decide standing because exclusionary ruling made the issue irrelevant to the outcome

Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (pleading plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1998) (federal courts in diversity apply forum state law as announced by the state’s highest court)
BP Am., Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 P.3d 832 (Okla. 2005) (insurance policies are contracts interpreted as a matter of law and unambiguous terms receive plain meaning)
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2012) (issues not argued on appeal are waived)
Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 417 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (district-court rulings on matters irrelevant to ultimate outcome need not be decided)