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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT