Georgia Federal Judge Rules Insurer's Firearms Exclusion Was Too Ambiguous to Bar Coverage
The district court explained that, under one reasonable interpretation, the exclusion could be read to mean that only the insured's use of “firearms” was included. Under an “equally reasonable interpretation,” the district court continued, the exclusion could be read to deny coverage for “bodily injury” resulting from any use of “firearms,” including by a third party.
September 06, 2018 at 09:27 AM
3 minute read
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
A federal district court in Georgia has ruled that a firearms exclusion in a commercial general liability insurance policy was ambiguous and did not bar coverage of a wrongful death action against the insured.
The Case
Carol Slocumb filed a wrongful death action against Snappy Slappy LLC, d/b/a Jus One More, alleging that her son had been shot and killed by a fellow business invitee at Jus One More. Ms. Slocumb contended that Jus One More's negligent security practices were the proximate cause of her son's death, and she sought damages relating to pain and suffering, burial expenses, and the value of her son's life.
Jus One More notified Hudson Specialty Insurance Company, the insurer that had issued it a commercial general liability insurance policy, of Ms. Slocumb's lawsuit.
Hudson responded that the policy barred coverage for Ms. Slocumb's lawsuit based on, among other things, its firearms exclusion.
Jus One More disputed Hudson's interpretation, and Hudson filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Jus One More from Ms. Slocumb's suit because it involved the use of a firearm.
Hudson moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that losses associated with the use of a firearm were not covered by its policy.
The Hudson Policy
The Hudson policy provided that it did not apply to: “'bodily injury' . . . arising out of the manufacture, importation, sales, distribution, gunsmithing, ownership, maintenance or use of firearms or weapons.”
The District Court's Decision
The district court denied Hudson's motion.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$31M Settlement Reached: Litigators Resolve Explosive Lithium-Ion Battery Damages Dispute
8 minute readEx-Justices Help Appellant Team Secure Reversal in Garnishment Dispute
5 minute readBank of America Alleges Atlanta Lawyer 'Refused' to Return Almost $1M From DOT Settlements
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250