BROADCASTS.com

b'

NEITHER BATTERY NOR FAILURE TO REMOVE INTOXICATED PATRON IS AN OCCURRENCE  

In Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Spike\'s Pub & Grub, d/b/a Vincint Von Hart LLC, and Devin Elliott, No. 3:21-CV-1722-NJR,  United States District Court, S.D. Illinois (January 4, 2023) Plaintiff  Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (\\u201cCFSIC\\u201d) sought an  order declaring that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant  Spike\'s Pub & Grub, d/b/a Vincint Von Hart LLC (\\u201cSpike\'s\\u201d), in a  case pending in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.  BACKGROUND  Devin Elliott (\\u201cElliott\\u201d) sued Spike\'s Public House, LLC, d/b/a Spike\'s  Pub & Grub (the \\u201cUnderlying Action\\u201d). In the Underlying Action,  Elliott alleges that on March 18, 2021, Spike\'s sold or gave alcoholic  beverages to Corey Lyell, causing Lyell\'s intoxication. While  intoxicated, and as a result of his intoxication, Lyell attacked Elliott  and stabbed him multiple times, inflicting severe injury upon Elliott.  

AVAILABLE INSURANCE  

Spike\'s was insured under a Commercial General Liability policy issued  by CFSIC (\\u201cthe Policy\\u201d). CFSIC, however, advised Spike\'s in writing that  it owed no obligation to defend or indemnify Spike\'s based on the terms  of the Policy.  CFSIC filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking a declaration  that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Spike\'s under the Policy.  Both Spike\'s and Elliott failed to answer the Complaint, and the Clerk  of Court entered default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  55(a) as to both Defendants on July 22, 2022. CFSIC then moved for  Default Judgment.  LEGAL STANDARD  Rule 55(a) requires the clerk to enter default when a party against whom  a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or  otherwise defend and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.  

DISCUSSION  A duty to defend arises if the allegations in the complaint fall within  or potentially within the coverage of the policy. This is known as the  \\u201ceight corners\\u201d rule: the court compares the four corners of the  underlying complaint with the four corners of the insurance policy to  determine whether facts alleged in the underlying complaint fall within  or potentially within coverage. If they do, the insurer has a duty to  defend.