ILNews

Insurer’s exclusion stands after bar fight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman’s own description of a barroom brawl that left her with a broken arm was used against her in allowing an insurance company to deny coverage.

Kari Everhart was standing at the bar of Club Coyote in west Terre Haute when a patron was shoved and fell onto her. When she tried to catch herself, she broke her arm in several places.  

Club Coyote had liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage with Founders Insurance Co. However, the policy included an exclusion for bodily injury caused by assault and /or battery.

After Everhart filed a complaint for damages, Founders pointed to this exclusion and asserted it had no duty to defend or indemnify either party. The insurance company argued Everhart’s admissions show her injury was the result of battery.

In her interrogatory, Everhart said the incident began when the bartender grabbed the patron and bounced his head off the bar about three or four times before shoving him into a small crowd. The patron was shoved again and fell violently, grabbing Everhart and causing her to fall.

Everhart disputed Founders’ reasoning, maintaining the exclusion covers intentional acts. She argued she never contended any employee or patron of the bar did anything intentionally.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Founders in Kari Everhart v. Founders Insurance Company, 84A01-1303-PL-128.

The COA found Everhart’s description fits the definition of battery as set forth in Singh v. Lyday, 8890 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). It also pointed out there is not dispute that the patron was intentionally pushed and that Everhart suffered injuries as a result which makes her the victim of battery.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT