Hostage taken by bank robber and shot 'not an accident,' court says
An Okla. court ruled that a bank’s insurer did not have to defend it in a lawsuit brought by a customer who was taken hostage.
A federal district court in Oklahoma has ruled that a bank’s insurance carrier did not have to defend or indemnify the bank in a lawsuit brought by a customer who was taken hostage by a bank robber and thereafter shot by law enforcement officers.
The robbery
In 2016, an armed robber entered Bank of Eufaula, in Eufaula, Okla., while Julie Huff was there. He shot and killed the bank’s president, and he shot a teller who resisted his demand for money. The robber then took Huff hostage at gunpoint, ordered her to drive him in a stolen vehicle, and forced her to take him several miles as he sat in the passenger seat with a gun pointed at her.
Law enforcement officers chasing the stolen vehicle were informed that Huff was a hostage. After law enforcement stopped the vehicle, Huff ran, but the robber caught up to her, put his arm around her neck, and used her as a human shield.
Law enforcement officers and the robber exchanged gunfire, during which time law enforcement bullets struck Huff approximately nine times.
Huff sued the bank, alleged that it owed her a duty as a business invitee, that it failed to follow industry standards to protect its customers from such a foreseeable situation, and that its failures, negligence, and reckless disregard for her rights had caused her injuries.
The bank asked its insurer, Great Lakes Insurance SE, for defense and indemnity.
Great Lakes brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the bank in Huff’s lawsuit.
The parties moved for summary judgment.
The court’s decision
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes.
In its decision, the district court reasoned that the injuries to Huff at issue in her state court action had been caused by the bank robber shooting and killing the bank president, shooting the bank teller, taking Huff hostage at gunpoint, and using her as a human shield. These acts, the district court continued, constituted “battery,” were not an “accident,” and, therefore, did not amount to an “occurrence” under the policy.
The district court was not persuaded by the bank’s contention that the law enforcement officers shot Huff accidentally during the gunfight, explaining that although the law enforcement officers no doubt hoped they would not hit Huff, “they intentionally shot at her as a result of the bank robber shooting at them and using her as a human shield.” None of these acts was “accidental,” according to the district court.
Accordingly, the district court ruled, Great Lakes had “no duty to defend or indemnify” the bank.
The district court added that because Huff’s injuries were caused by an assault and battery, the policy’s “assault” or “battery” exclusion — which the district court said was “not ambiguous” — also precluded coverage. Huff’s injuries, the district court added, “clearly were caused by the intentional battery by the bank robber and by the intentional acts of law enforcement trying to prevent or suppress the bank robber from further intentional battery.”
The district court said that, to the extent that the bank could be found negligent for not hiring enough security to prevent such an event, that was “also excluded.” The district court concluded that, to the extent that the bank could be found negligent for having too many entrances, that did “not change the fact” that Huff’s injuries “were caused by an assault and battery,” coverage for which was excluded under the policy.
The case is Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Bank of Eufaula, No. CIV-18-055-RAW (E.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2019).
This first appeared on law.com.
Related: