An exclusion for firearms in a CGL policy barred coverage despite the insured's argument that the concurrent causation doctrine should apply. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. JBC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2835 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2012).

   The coverage dispute arose when an unknown person fired a gun and injured a patron at the insured's night club. The insured was sued by the injured party, who alleged the insured was liable for negligent hiring, training and supervision, and negligent failure to provide adequate security. Capitol agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, and then filed an action for declaratory judgment.

   The firearms exclusion barred coverage for "bodily injury . . . that arises out of, relates to, is based upon, or attributable to the use of a firearm." The insured argued the negligence claims fell outside of the firearms exclusion and that the exclusion was ambiguous about whether it applied to any firearms-related injury, or only to the use of a firearm by the insured. The trial court granted Capitol's motion for summary judgment.

   On appeal, the insured argued the underlying claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision and security alleged a concurrent and independent cause of the injuries and therefore fell outside of the firearms exclusion. The appellate court disagreed. The underlying claims alleged pre-assault negligence and depended entirely on the shooting. The claims thus arose out of and related to the use of a firearm. 

  Further, the exclusion was not ambiguous. The language of the exclusion unequivocally excluded coverage from bodily injury arising from the use of a firearm.