Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Klub Kutter's Bar & Lounge, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

April 24, 2018

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
KLUB KUTTER'S BAR & LOUNGE, LLC, and DANIELLE ROLAND, Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          BET BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Final Summary Judgment, ECF No. [41] (“Plaintiff's Motion”), and Defendant Klub Kutter's Bar & Lounge, LLC's (“Defendant”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [50], (“Defendant's Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the record, all supporting and opposing filings, the exhibits attached thereto, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is granted and Plaintiff's Motion is denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. The Underlying Lawsuit

         Danielle Roland (“Roland”) filed a lawsuit in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida against Defendant, No. CACE16019780 (“the underlying lawsuit”). See ECF No. [42-2]. In the underlying lawsuit, Roland alleged that, on or about September 6, 2015, she was a business invitee on Defendant's premises. Id. at ¶ 5. On that date, Roland claims she was “trampled by a stampede of patrons located within the Defendant's nightclub, resulting in severe and permanent injuries.” Id. at ¶ 6. This “stampede was caused by a fight and subsequent shooting which took place at the Defendant's nightclub.” Id. at ¶ 7. As a result of this incident, Roland asserted a claim for negligence against Defendant in which she alleged that Defendant “failed to adequately provide security measures to ensure the safety of business invitees while in its club or elsewhere on its premises” and that Defendant's security measures “were not sufficient to provide a reasonably safe condition for its patrons, business invitees or other individuals at the nightclub.” Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. In addition, Roland alleged that Defendant breached its duty to provide reasonably safe conditions for its patrons and business invitees by (1) failing “to devise, implement and follow a proper security plan, reasonably designed to protect invitees from harm, ” (2) failing “to properly employ and deploy an adequate number of security personnel to reasonably protect persons on the premises;” and (3) failing “to utilize reasonable and appropriate measures to protect persons on the premises when it knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises.” Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff is currently defending Defendant from the claims raised in the underlying lawsuit under a full reservation of rights. See ECF No. [1] at ¶ 18.

         B. The Insurance Policy

         Plaintiff issued an insurance policy to Defendant, Policy No. CPS2312936, which commenced on August 31, 2015 and ended on August 31, 2016 (the “Policy”). See ECF No. [42-1]. The Policy, in pertinent part, provides coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” if (1) the “bodily injury” or “property damage” is caused by an “occurrence” that takes place in the “coverage territory;” or (2) the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occurs during the policy period. Id. at 17. “Occurrence” is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Id. at 31. However, the Policy also contains certain exclusions, including one for assault and battery (“the Assault and Battery Exclusion”). Id. at 54. It provides as follows:

         ASSAULT AND/OR BATTERY EXCLUSION

         This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

         COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART ERRORS AND OMISSIONS COVERAGE PART LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

         The following exclusion is added to the Exclusions section:

         This insurance does not apply to “injury, ” “bodily injury, ” “property damage, ” “error or omission” or “personal and advertising injury” arising from:

         1. Assault and/or Battery committed by any insured, any employee/“employee” of any insured, or any other person; 2. The attempt or failure to suppress or prevent Assault and/or Battery by any person in 1. above; 3. The selling, serving or furnishing of alcoholic beverages which results in an Assault and/or Battery.

         4. The negligent;

a. Employment;
b. Investigation;
c. Supervision;
d. Reporting to the proper authorities, or failure to so report; or
e. Retention
of a person for whom any insured is or ever was legally responsible and whose conduct would be excluded by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.