The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment after finding there was no coverage based upon the policy’s assault and battery exclusion. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mainline Private Security, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259938. (E.D. Pa. Dec. 26, 2025)

Mainline Private Security, LLC provided security guard services to bars and events. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company (CSU) was an excess and surplus lines insurer. CSU issued to Mainline a CGL policy. The policy included an assault or battery exclusion with limited coverage options. The exclusion stated that “[t]his insurance does not apply to bodily injury arising out of . . . an actual or threatened assault or battery.” The exclusion provided an optional supplement – which Mainline purchased – providing coverage of up to $250,000 per occurrence, $250,000 in the aggregate, for claims “arising out of an actual or threatened assault or battery, a failure to provide adequate security, or a failure to prevent or suppress an assault or battery.” The $250,000 limit was eroded through CSU’s payments of judgments, settlements and defense costs for these claims.

Mainline faced twelve claims during the policy period, two of which were relevant for this case. In one case, the Mainland security guard, Kenneth Frye, escorted Eric Pope from the bar and punched him in the head, causing Pope to fall backwards and strike his head. Mr. Pope ultimately died from his injuries.

In the second case, Rishabh Abhyankar sued for injuries he suffered outside a bar when another patron threw Abhyankar to the ground, fracturing his skull. Mr. Abhyankar sued Mainland and the bar for negligence.

CSU took the position that it was not obligated to defend either the Pope or Abhyankai lawsuits because the allegations asserted in the lawsuits were within the assault and battery exclusion. CUS filed suit for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage and that the $250,000 limit for assault and battery coverage had been exhausted by other cases.

CSU moved for summary judgment. Taking the facts alleged in the underlying complaints as true, both Mr. Pope and Mr. Abhyankar’s injuries arose out of an assault and battery. There were no allegations that the injuries were caused in any way other than by assault and battery. Further, CSU’s policy exclusion was not limited to claims alleging assault and battery but also “The failure of any insured . . . to prevent or suppress assault or battery . . . The failure to provide an environment safe from assault or battery . . . The failure to render or secure medical treatment or care necessitated by any assault or battery . . .or The negligent investigation or reporting or failure to report any assault or battery to proper authorities.” Reading these provisions in comparison with the negligence claims in the two complaints did not render the exclusion to be inapplicable.

Finally, because $250,000 had been fully eroded through the payment of defense costs and settlements from other claims, CSU had no duty to defend or indemnify Mainline for the Pope and Abhyankair lawsuits.