Century Sur. Co. v. Seductions, LLC

Century Sur. Co. v. Seductions, LLC

Opinion

 [*456]  PER CURIAM:

Mauricio Arana-Landeros and his wife, Blanca Arana, (collectively, "the Aranas") appeal the district court's entry of final summary judgment in favor of Century Surety Company ("Century") on its claim for a declaratory judgment against its insured, Seductions, LLC, and the Aranas. The Aranas argue that the district court erred in concluding that an insurance policy issued by Century covered only $ 25,000 of Seductions's liability for injuries Mauricio suffered as a patron at Seductions's adult nightclub. Following a brief recitation of the relevant facts, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Mauricio Arana was  [**2] injured in 2006 when Seductions employees allegedly beat and threw him out of the company's nightclub after he refused to leave at closing time. The Aranas subsequently sued Seductions in state court to recover damages for Mauricio's injuries, medical expenses alleged to exceed $ 1 million, and loss of consortium. The Aranas' complaint alleged that Seductions had negligently hired, retained, trained, and supervised the employees responsible for the attack.

Seductions tendered defense of the lawsuit to Century, its insurer under a commercial general liability policy in effect at the time of Mauricio's injuries. The policy covered losses incurred by Seductions due to "bodily injury" arising from "operations necessary or incidental to" its nightclub. The policy also provided coverage for "personal and advertising injury," which was defined to include the "wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor." The policy's declarations page established a $ 2 million "General Aggregate Limit," $ 1 million "Personal and Advertising Injury"  [**3] and "Each Occurrence" limits, and a $ 2,000 per person "Medical Expense Limit" on coverage.

In addition, two endorsements to the policy, forms CGL 1704 and CGL 1717, limited coverage for losses arising from assault and battery. Through Century's inadvertence, however, CGL 1704, which explicitly excluded coverage for assault, battery, and any related negligence claims, was neither attached to the policy nor listed on the policy's schedule of forms and endorsements. Nevertheless, CGL 1717, entitled "Limited Coverage -- Assault & Battery," was attached. CGL 1717 provided that "[t]he specific coverage excluded under CGL 1704 is reinstated on a limited basis" and purported to establish a $ 25,000 per occurrence sublimit for "covered loss arising from an assault and battery."

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.