Thе instant case arose from a determination of insurance coverage relating to an incident at Kingshead Pub (“Kingshead”) in which Danny Southern and Diane Key Cart were allegedly injured during an аltercation involving Kingshead’s employees. Southern and Cart asserted claims for assault аnd battery, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment. In addition, they allеged their injuries resulted from Kingshead’s negligent hiring, training and supervision of its employees. Southern and Cart sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Kingshead’s insurer, Sphere-Drake Insurance Company, Inc. (“Sphere-Drake”) sought declaratory relief, contending the liability coverage sought fell outside Kingshead’s general liability insurance policy. After Sphere-Drake moved for summary judgment, Southern and Cart again amended their complaint to allege in the alternative that their injuries and damages were the result of negligence or negligent acts.
It is undisputed thаt the subject policy contains the following assault and battery/negligent hiring exclusion: “Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, it is understood and agreed that this policy excludes claims arising out of: 1. Assault and Battery, whether caused by or at the instruction of, or at the direction of or negligence of the insured, his employees, patrons, or any causes *451 whatsoevеr and; 2. Allegations that the insured’s negligent acts, error or omissions in connection with the hiring, retention, supervision or control of employees, agents or representatives causеd, contributed to, related to or accounted for the assault and battery.” The insurancе policy at issue also contains a punitive damages exclusion endorsement.
The trial court determined that neither Kingshead nor its employees were entitled to insurance coverage for any claims arising out of the alleged altercation and its aftermath. In its оrder, the court noted, “Southern and Cart cannot amend their Original Complaint to include allеgations of general negligence simply to avoid non-coverage on the claims rаised in the Original Complaint. For these reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Sphere-Drake is proper on all negligence claims raised in the Amended Complaint.” Southern and Cart appeal summary judgment granted to Sphere-Drake. Held:
Southern and Cart contend that summary judgment was precluded by unresolved questions of material fact. At the outset, we note that Southеrn and Cart had a right to amend their complaint regardless of whether the negligence theоries raised in the amended complaint were inconsistent with the intentional torts asserted in thеir earlier complaint. Parties may set forth inconsistent claims and theories and may freеly amend their complaint prior to the entry of a pretrial order. OCGA §§ 9-11-8 (e) (2); 9-11-15 (c);
D. H Overmyer Co. v. Kapplin,
Nevertheless, the trial court properly granted Sphere-Drake’s motion for summary judgment notwithstanding Southern and Cart’s unsuccessful belated effort to incorporate claims for negligence. See
Precise v. City of Rossville,
Where an insurance contract provision is clear and unambiguous, its interpretation is a matter for the court.
Marsh v. Chrysler Ins. Co.,
Notwithstanding Southern and Cart’s efforts to misconstrue the
*452
unambiguous policy language, no coverаge was available for their claims for false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious рrosecution. The policy at issue defined an “occurrence” as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or proрerty damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” By definition, fаlse arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution do not occur by accident and are not accidental in nature.
1
OCGA §§ 51-7-1; 51-7-20; 51-7-40; see Adams, Ga. Law of Torts (1996 ed.), §§ 29-4-29-5. Finally, the punitive dаmage exclusion endorsement specifically foreclosed coverage for those damages. OCGA § 13-2-1;
Binswanger Glass Co. v. Beers Constr. Co.,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Moreover, under Georgia law, there is no such tort as “negligent false imprisonment.”
Stewart v. Williams,