Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesnegligenceliabilityappealtrialsummary judgmentgarnishment
damagesnegligenceliabilitysummary judgment

Related Cases

Coleman v. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. ex rel. State, 347 Or. 94, 217 P.3d 651
View Case »
Pipe v. Hamilton, 274 Kan. 905, 56 P.3d 823
View Case »
Anderson v. Mandalay Corp., 131 Nev. 825, 358 P.3d 242, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 82
View Case »
Iverson v. United States, 973 F.3d 843
View Case »
F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073, 43 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 493, 3 Media L. Rep. 2553
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Forsman v. Blues, Brews and Bar-B-Ques, Inc., 903 N.W.2d 524, 2017 ND 266

Facts

Carol Forsman was injured at a private party at Muddy Rivers, a bar, when she was allegedly pushed to the ground by Amanda Espinoza, a drunk customer. Forsman sued Muddy Rivers and its insurer, United Fire, for damages, claiming negligence and premises liability. United Fire denied coverage based on exclusions for assault and liquor liability. After a trial, Forsman and Muddy Rivers settled, admitting liability but limiting collection to United Fire. Forsman then sought garnishment against United Fire, leading to the current appeal.

Carol Forsman was injured at a private party at Muddy Rivers, a bar, when she was allegedly pushed to the ground by Amanda Espinoza, a drunk customer. Forsman sued Muddy Rivers and its insurer, United Fire, for damages, claiming negligence and premises liability.

Issue

Whether the exclusions for 'assault and battery' and 'liquor liability' in the commercial general liability policy preclude coverage for Forsman's negligence claim against Muddy Rivers.

Whether the exclusions for 'assault and battery' and 'liquor liability' in the commercial general liability policy preclude coverage for Forsman's negligence claim against Muddy Rivers.

Rule

The court examined the insurance policy's coverage and exclusions, determining that exclusions must be clear and explicit, and that genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of these exclusions can preclude summary judgment.

The court examined the insurance policy's coverage and exclusions, determining that exclusions must be clear and explicit, and that genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of these exclusions can preclude summary judgment.

Analysis

The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Forsman's injuries were caused by an assault, which would invoke the assault and battery exclusion, and whether the injuries were related to the bar's actions in serving alcohol, which would invoke the liquor liability exclusion. The court emphasized that the insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify, and any potential for coverage must be resolved in favor of the insured.

The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Forsman's injuries were caused by an assault, which would invoke the assault and battery exclusion, and whether the injuries were related to the bar's actions in serving alcohol, which would invoke the liquor liability exclusion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve the factual issues regarding coverage.

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve the factual issues regarding coverage.

Who won?

Carol Forsman prevailed in the case as the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of the insurance policy exclusions, thus allowing her claims to proceed.

Carol Forsman prevailed in the case as the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of the insurance policy exclusions, thus allowing her claims to proceed.

You must be