Founders Ins. Co. v. Bentley Entm't., LLC
| Decision Date | 17 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:12-cv-01315,3:12-cv-01315 |
| Parties | FOUNDERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BENTLEY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a BENTLEY'S HOUSE OF SOUL, REGGIE RIDLEY, DHARMESH PATEL, KAREN S. BATES-THOMPSON, individually, and as ADMINISTRATRIX, of the ESTATE OF BRIAN A. AMOS, JR., and BRIAN A. AMOS, SR., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, Founders Insurance Company ("Founders"), an Illinois company with its principal place of business in Illinois, filed this action under the federal diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. §1332, against Defendants: Bentley Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a Bentley's House of Soul, a Tennessee corporation; Reggie Ridley; Dharmesh Patel1; Karen S. Bates-Thompson, individually, and as administratrix of the Estate of Brian A. Amos, Jr.; and Brian A. Amos, Sr.2, all of whom are Tennessee citizens. (Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to resolve whether the insurance policy issued byPlaintiff Founders to the Bentley Defendants applies to claims arising out of Defendant Bates-Thompson's state court action against the Bentley Defendants. In response, the Bentley Defendants filed an answer with affirmative defenses and counter-complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the Founders insurance policy covers the underlying state court action. (Docket Entry No. 7, at 5-6, 18-19).
Before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry No. 11) and Plaintiff's' motion to strike the Bentley affirmative defenses as insufficient as a matter of law (Docket Entry No. 13).
In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff asserts that for this motion, the provisions of insurance policy and the factual; allegations in underlying state court first amended complaint that are attached as exhibits are undisputed. (Docket Entry No. 12, Memorandum at 2). Plaintiff Founders asserts that for this reason, the Court should grant judgment and determine that Plaintiff is not required to indemnify or defend the state court action on behalf of the Bentley Defendants because its policy expressly excludes the intentional tort claims in the state court action against the Bentley Defendants. Id. at 12.
Plaintiff's motion to strike contends that the Bentley Defendants' affirmative defenses are legally insufficient as "[f]here can be no reasonable argument as to whether the Complaint . . . states a claim for relief; "[t]he liquor liability coverage provided by the policy of insurance . . . is not pertinent to this dispute" because the state court complaint does not contain any allegations about liquor; and "[f]he concurrent cause doctrine would only serve to require the insurer to provide coverage if the concurrent cause created liability for the insured. "(Docket Entry No. 14, Memorandum at 3-4). As to Bentley Defendants' claims of concurrent cause,Plaintiff contends that the alleged negligence of others who are not covered by its policy cannot create coverage under a concurrent cause theory. Plaintiff also argues that "if Bentley, Ridley, and Patel are somehow legally responsible for the negligence of the other state court defendants, the Assault and Battery exclusion applies to exclude coverage." Id. at 10.
Bentley Defendants' responses to both motions (Docket Entry Nos. 16-17) contend, in sum: (1) that the motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied because of ambiguities in the pleadings, (2) that the negligence of the other defendants constitutes a concurrent cause to bar exclusion of this incident; (3) that Founders's "[c]omplaint does not refer to the Commercial Liquor License Insurance provisions that may require Founders to defend and indemnify the Bentley Defendants; (4) that the Founders policy terms on assault and/or battery are ambiguous because those terms are not defined in the insurance policy; and (5) ambiguity in the shooter's intent exists in the state court action affecting whether the injuries were caused by an assault and/or battery. (Docket Entry No. 16, Response at 3, 4-6 and 8). Bentley Defendants also assert the negligence of the other Defendants as a concurrent cause to which the exclusions in Founders's policy does not apply because the Bentley Defendants are not legally responsible for those defendants. Id. at 6-8. The Bentley Defendants incorporate these arguments in response to Plaintiff's motion to strike. (Docket Entry No. 17, Response at 1-2).
Plaintiff responds that the Bates-Thompson state court action is unambiguous given the state court complaint's allegations are that an unidentified John Doe committed the tort of assault against the decedent after the unidentified John Doe provoked the incident and shot him, resulting in decedent's death. (Docket Entry No. 18, Reply at 2). Plaintiff further contends that the concurrent cause doctrine is inapplicable because "the concurrent cause doctrine does notcreate a duty to defend and indemnify an insured when a theory of liability is asserted against an entity unrelated to the insurance policy." Id. at 4. Finally, Plaintiff contends that the liquor liability coverage is not triggered given the lack of allegation in the state court complaint about selling alcohol as a cause of the events, and in any event, such activity is excluded by the assault and battery exclusion in the liquor coverage. Id. at 5.
The state court plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that contains virtually the same factual allegations, but adds Allegations about the Bentley Defendants' serving liquor at their establishment as a cause of the decedent's death. (Docket Entry No. 21-1).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that under the applicable law, the gravamen of the state action controls whether the Founders policy creates a contractual duty for Founders to defend that state court action. The factual core of the State court action is that a John Doe Defendant instigated a dispute with the deceased and left the building to secure a weapon that he used to kill the deceased. The state court action expressly refers to the shooting as a "tort[i]ous assault" for which Plaintiffs seek punitive damages. Founders' policy with the Bentley Defendants expressly excludes coverage of claims for bodily injury caused by an assault and excludes any claims for punitive damages. In light of these circumstances, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not owe a contractual duty to defend the Bentley Defendants in the State court action. Thus, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted. This conclusion renders moot any consideration of Plaintiff's motion to strike.
Karen S. Bates, individually, and as administratrix of the estate of Brian A. Amos, Jr., and Brian A. Amos, Sr., filed an action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee against Defendants: Reggie Ridley, Bentley's House of Soul, Dharmesh Patel, Bentley Entertainment, LLC, Ronald Moseley, One World Protection Svc., James Guevara, Mark Snyder, AAA 24 Hour Bail Bond, Inc. d/b/a Eagle Eye Security, Marcus Fitzgerald (a.k.a. Tha City Paper), Felonious Entertainment, LLC, and Unidentified John Doe. (Docket Entry No. 1-1, State Complaint ¶¶ 1-13). In a word, Founders is not a party in the state court actions.
The factual core of Plaintiffs' claims in the state court action is that on October 9, 2011:
At about 3:54 a.m. upon information and belief, Brian A. Amos, Jr., was on the dance floor, whereby lethal shots were fired at Mr. Amos presumably by the Defendant, Unidentified John Doe. It is alleged that the Defendant, Unidentified John Doe instigated and provoked said incident. It is further alleged that all Defendants knew or should have known that by the nature of the music being played by the Defendant, Marcus Fitzgerald, rapper, a/k/a 'Tha City Paper' that it was foreseeable that some patrons in the crowd could possess weapons. It is further alleged the Defendants were and should have been aware Defendant, Unidentified John Doe, left the building to retrieve a deadly weapon and reentered the building.
Id. at ¶ 16. The state court complaint also alleges that this shooting was "a tort[i]uous assault" and that: "As a direct and proximate[] result of the negligent and /or intentional acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs would not have been deprived of the companionship and support of their son. Id. at ¶ ¶ 26, 29. The state court Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages. Id. at 13.
From these factual allegations, the state court Plaintiffs assert various negligence claims against the Bentley Defendants for their alleged failures to hire adequate and effective security personnel, to take appropriate measures to prevent deadly weapons from entering the establishment, to ensure public safety in the establishment, or otherwise to protect the patron, decedent Brian A. Amos, Jr. from his wrongful death. Id. at ¶¶ 19-28. The state court plaintiffsallege that "because the acts by [d]efendant, Unidentified John Doe, w[ere] reasonably foreseeable to all other named defendants . . ." they are "jointly and severally liable . . . for the fatal injuries and ultimately the wrongful death of Brian A. Amos, Jr. Id. at ¶ 31.
The Bates-Thompson plaintiffs in the state court action moved to amend their complaint to include an allegation regarding liquor liability, but the state court denied that motion. (Docket Entry No. 19, Notice at 1). Yet, subsequent filings in this action, reflect that on July 1, 2013, the Bates Thompson plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that is analyzed below. (Docket Entry No. 21-1).
In its supplemental papers, Plaintiff identifies the following paragraphs of the Bates-Thompson first amended complaint as relevant to the coverage issues in this action:
To continue reading
Request your trial