Insurer doesn’t have to pay judgment stemming from bar shooting

An insurer does not have to pay a $2.5 million judgment against a bar owner and operator won by a bystander who was injured in a shooting because of an assault and battery policy exclusion, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in affirming a lower court decision.

In 2019, Sominkcole Conner was at the Voce Bar in St. Louis when she was struck by a stray bullet when a dispute broke out between two other patrons, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Steven Scaglione v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co.; Sominkcole Conner v. Steven Scaglione; Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co.

Ms. Conner, who suffered serious injuries in the shooting, sued Mr. Scaglione, the bar’s owner, in state court, alleging negligence, among other claims.

At the time of the shooting, Mr. Scaglione had a commercial general liability policy with Omaha, Nebraska-based Acceptance, which included an exclusion for any assault or battery claims.

Acceptance did not defend or indemnify Mr. Scaglione in the court case and the parties ultimately agreed to arbitration, with an arbitrator awarding Ms. Conner $2.5 million.

Acceptance filed motions to dismiss both Ms. Conner’s and Mr. Scaglione’s claims in the case, citing its policy’s assault and battery exclusion. The district court in St. Louis ruled in the insurer’s favor and was affirmed by a three-judge appeals court panel.

Mr. Scaglione’s negligence “was not independent and distinct from the excluded assault and battery,” the panel ruled.

According to Ms. Conner’s allegations in her underlying petition, “Scaglione was aware that bar patrons were often armed with dangerous weapons in the late-night and early morning hours, and failed to provide adequate security measures, such as frisking, to prevent individuals from bringing firearms on the premises.”

Ms. Connor’s injuries, therefore, “were one of a narrow range of foreseeable harms stemming from Scaglione’s negligence,” the panel said.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.