Great American E & S Insurance v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc.
2012 R.I. LEXIS 89
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Defendant Gondusky alleges injuries from two End Zone doormen who refused re-entry after a late-night visit on February 16, 2002.
- Gondusky claims the doormen punched him and pushed him, causing a subdural hematoma and lasting injuries.
- Gondusky filed a civil action against End Zone in April 2004 for negligent actions of End Zone employees.
- Great American issued End Zone’s CGL policy and later asserted the assault/battery exclusion may bar coverage.
- Great American sued for declaratory relief seeking no duty to defend or indemnify; the matter was heard on summary judgment.
- Rhode Island Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Great American; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 27-9.1-4 confidentiality applies | Gondusky argues the act supports private relief for unfair practices. | Gondusky contends the act should bar denial or require timely denial of coverage. | Act provides no private action; not controlling here. |
| Whether the assault/battery exclusion precludes coverage | Gondusky challenges the exclusion as illusory and timely denial as required. | Great American argues the explicit exclusion precludes any assault/battery claims. | Exclusion precludes coverage for claims arising from assault/battery; summary judgment valid. |
| Whether the exclusion makes coverage illusory | Gondusky asserts exclusion would apply broadly to any contact, rendering coverage illusory. | Great American maintains exclusion applies only where assault/battery occurred with intentional contact. | Exclusion not illusory; applies only to intentional assault/battery contexts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 654 A.2d 690 (R.I.1995) (battery requires intentional contact; intent to injure not always necessary)
- Proffitt v. Ricci, 463 A.2d 514 (R.I.1983) (definition of battery and intent element)
- Pressman v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 574 A.2d 757 (R.I.1990) (illusory exclusion requires preclusion of coverage in almost any circumstance)
- Solomon v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 685 A.2d 1073 (R.I.1996) (no private action under Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act)
- Narragansett Improvement Co. v. Wheeler, 21 A.3d 430 (R.I.2011) (summary judgment standard and burden on nonmoving party)