In granting summary judgment to the insurer and finding no duty to defend, Louisiana’s highest court reversed a trial court’s ruling on the basis of the “clear and unambiguous” assault and battery exclusion in a commercial general liability policy.
Kazan tragically arose from a kidnapping and subsequent homicide of a guest of the insured — a motel operating in Alexandria, Louisiana. As the victim was attempting to retrieve something from her vehicle, another motel guest approached her and drove off with her in her own vehicle, which was eventually found submerged in a lake along with the bodies of both the victim and perpetrator.
The victim’s parents filed suit against several entities, including the motel and its insurer. The insurer, in turn, petitioned the court for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the motel or any other entity under its policy. The insurer pointed to an assault and battery exclusion in the motel’s policy that barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of an “assault,” “battery,” or “physical altercation,” as defined. The insurer contended that the kidnapping and resultant death fell within the purview of the exclusion. In opposition, the plaintiffs argued that the Louisiana Supreme Court previously established in Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp., 665 So. 2d 116 (La. 1996), that kidnapping does not unambiguously fall within the scope of an assault and battery exclusion.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments. In siding with the insurer, the court first confirmed the well-founded tenant of insurance law that the court cannot alter policy terms to “create an ambiguity where none exists” and must instead enforce policy language as written “[w]hen the words of an insurance policy are clear and explicit.” Against that backdrop, the court turned to the specific language of the assault and battery exclusion and, more specifically, the definition of “physical altercation.” The term was defined in the policy as “a dispute between individual[s] in which one or more persons sustain bodily injury arising out of the dispute.” Giving these words their plain meaning, the court found the exclusion applied to the facts at hand. While noting the case is undoubtedly tragic, absent a conflict with statutory provisions or public policy, the court held that “insurers are entitled to limit their liability by imposing reasonable conditions upon the policy obligations they contractually assume.” The court also found Ledbetter did not warrant a different outcome, noting the policy at issue in that case did not define the relevant terms in the exclusion. As such, the court confirmed there is no steadfast rule regarding the application of assault and battery exclusions to claims involving kidnapping.
