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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT