Assault and Battery Exclusion
Written by Justin Goodman, CIC, CISC, CLCS, CEO and Co-Founder, Total CSR
Published: August 10, 2026 · Last reviewed: August 10, 2026
In plain language: An assault and battery exclusion removes insurance coverage for injuries caused by fights, attacks, or other deliberate acts of violence at a business. If a customer punches another customer causing bodily harm, the policy typically will not pay for that personal injury or the resulting lawsuit. While criminal assault and criminal battery may result in criminal charges handled by law enforcement, the civil liability and insurance coverage issues are separate legal matters.
Technical definition: Assault and battery exclusion is a Commercial General Liability endorsement that bars coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising from actual or alleged assault, battery, or failure to prevent or suppress such acts of intentional infliction of harm, subject to carve-backs for reasonable force used in self-defense or protection of property.
Assault and Battery Exclusion at a Glance
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|---|
| Also known as | A&B Exclusion, Assault and Battery Endorsement, Violent Acts Exclusion |
| Category | Liability policy exclusion |
| Lines of business | Commercial General Liability, Liquor Liability, Business Owners Policy |
| Industries most affected | Bars, nightclubs, restaurants with entertainment, security guard firms, apartment complexes, hotels |
| Related forms or endorsements | CG 21 46 (Exclusion – Assault or Battery), CG 21 47 |
| Who bears the risk | The named insured business, absent a specific buyback or standalone policy |
| Common solution | Standalone assault and battery liability policy or negligent security coverage endorsement |
| Also interacts with | Liquor liability coverage, negligent security claims, duty to defend obligations |
Key Takeaways
- Assault and battery exclusion eliminates General Liability coverage for injuries caused by intentional violent acts, including fights, attacks, and failure to stop them, regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.
- Agencies working with bars, nightclubs, apartment complexes, and security firms must flag this exclusion because these industries face elevated exposure to violent-act claims involving physical contact and potential serious bodily injury.
- The most common misunderstanding is assuming "negligent security" claims automatically bypass the exclusion; many carriers word the exclusion broadly enough to bar even claims based on inadequate security or staff training that result in bodily harm.
- A quick win for agencies is quoting a standalone assault and battery liability policy or endorsement buyback for any client operating an establishment that serves alcohol, hosts late-night crowds, or employs security personnel who may need to use physical force.
What Is Assault and Battery Exclusion in Insurance?
Assault and battery exclusion is a General Liability policy provision that strips coverage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from intentional violent conduct, whether committed by a patron, employee, or third party on the insured's premises. While criminal assault and criminal battery are criminal offenses prosecuted by law enforcement, this insurance exclusion addresses the civil liability exposure from such intentional acts. Carriers add this exclusion because standard CGL policies are priced and underwritten around accidental, negligence-based losses, not deliberate acts of harm or criminal acts. Underwriters view businesses with alcohol service, large crowds, or security staff as carrying a fundamentally different risk profile than a typical retail or office operation.
The exclusion exists because assault and battery claims tend to be severe, unpredictable, and closely tied to alcohol consumption or crowd control failures involving physical contact and potential great bodily harm. A bar that overserves a patron who then starts a fight faces a claim that blends liquor liability, negligent security, and bodily injury exposure all at once. Without the exclusion, insurers would be pricing standard GL policies to absorb losses that behave more like a specialty line and could involve serious bodily injury or even deadly force scenarios.
Consider a nightclub where a bouncer physically restrains an unruly guest, causing a broken jaw through harmful contact. The injured guest sues the club for the bouncer's use of force and for failing to prevent the underlying altercation. If the club's GL policy contains an unmodified assault and battery exclusion, the carrier can deny both the defense and the indemnity, leaving the nightclub to fund its own legal representation and any settlement or judgment. The injured party may also pursue criminal charges against the bouncer, creating both a criminal offense matter and a civil personal injury claim.
Many exclusions include a carve-back preserving coverage when reasonable force is used to protect people or property from imminent bodily harm or an immediate threat of violence, but the scope of that carve-back varies significantly by carrier and by endorsement edition.
How Does Assault and Battery Exclusion Work?
- The incident. A physical altercation occurs on the insured's premises, involving a patron, employee, or third party, potentially constituting simple assault, aggravated assault, or aggravated battery depending on the severity and whether a deadly weapon was involved.
- The claim. The injured party files a claim or lawsuit alleging bodily injury caused by the assault, the battery, or the insured's failure to prevent it, and may simultaneously pursue criminal charges through law enforcement or retain a criminal defense attorney if they were the aggressor.
- The coverage review. The carrier reviews the policy and identifies the assault and battery exclusion, checking whether the loss falls within any reasonable-force or self-defense carve-back, and whether the intentional act meets the intent requirement for exclusion.
- The reservation of rights or denial. The carrier issues a reservation of rights letter or an outright denial of defense and indemnity if the exclusion applies without exception, forcing the insured to seek their own defense attorney or legal representation.
- The gap exposure. The insured business is left to self-fund defense costs and any settlement or judgment unless a standalone assault and battery policy or specific buyback endorsement responds, potentially facing substantial financial exposure from serious bodily injury claims.
Real Claim Examples Involving Assault and Battery Exclusion
Bar fight leading to a permanent injury claim
A sports bar hosted a crowded weekend event where two patrons got into a fight that left one with a fractured orbital bone and substantial bodily harm. The injured patron sued the bar for overserving the aggressor and failing to intervene quickly enough to prevent the physical harm. The bar's CGL policy carried an unmodified assault and battery exclusion, so the carrier denied both defense and indemnity, forcing the bar to retain its own defense attorney and eventually settle out of pocket. The aggressor also faced criminal battery charges and potential jail time in county jail.
Security guard use of force at an apartment complex
An apartment community's contracted security guard, acting as a peace officer, used physical force to remove a trespasser, and the trespasser sustained a wrist injury during the encounter involving unwanted touching and offensive contact. The property owner's GL carrier initially denied the claim under the assault and battery exclusion, but the endorsement's reasonable-force carve-back applied because the guard was acting to protect residents from an active disturbance and imminent threat, demonstrating the apparent ability to cause harm. A reasonable person would have viewed the guard's actions as necessary to prevent immediate bodily harm, and the carrier ultimately provided a defense.
Nightclub sued for negligent security after a shooting
A nightclub faced a lawsuit after a patron was shot by another guest in the parking lot with a deadly weapon, with the plaintiff alleging inadequate security staffing and lighting created a well-founded fear and reasonable apprehension of danger. The club argued the claim sounded in negligence rather than assault and battery, but the carrier's exclusion language was broad enough to bar claims "arising out of" any assault or battery regardless of the negligence theory pled, and coverage was denied. The shooter faced first-degree assault or second-degree assault criminal charges depending on jurisdiction, while the venue dealt with the civil liability exposure from this violent injury.
Domestic violence incident at residential property
An apartment complex was sued after a domestic violence incident between tenants in a domestic relationship resulted in serious injuries, with the victim alleging the property failed to respond to a pattern of threats and domestic abuse complaints. The victim had previously reported domestic violence and psychological abuse to management, creating reasonable fear among neighbors. The property's GL carrier invoked the assault and battery exclusion, arguing the claim arose from intentional infliction of harm despite being framed as negligent failure to protect vulnerable individuals. The perpetrator faced felony charges including aggravated battery and potential prison time, while the property owner faced civil liability for failing to intervene in what became a criminal act on the premises.
Assault and Battery Exclusion vs. Negligent Security Coverage: What Is the Difference?
Assault and battery exclusion removes coverage for injuries tied to intentional violent acts and physical acts of violence, while negligent security coverage is a specialty product or endorsement designed specifically to restore some or all of that coverage for premises-liability claims based on inadequate security measures that fail to prevent bodily harm. Agencies frequently confuse the two because negligent security claims almost always arise from an underlying assault or battery involving harmful contact or threat of violence.
| Comparison area | Assault and Battery Exclusion | Negligent Security Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Removing standard GL coverage for violent-act claims involving intentional touching or physical contact | Restoring coverage for premises owners facing inadequate-security lawsuits after incidents causing serious bodily injury |
| Coverage / concept type | Exclusionary endorsement barring claims from criminal offense conduct | Coverage grant, often written as a buyback or standalone policy addressing threat of violence scenarios |
| Typical exclusions | Reasonable force and self-defense against imminent bodily harm may be carved back | May still exclude direct participation in the assault by an employee or use of a dangerous weapon |
| Who is most affected by errors | Bars, nightclubs, and hospitality operators facing aggravated assault or third-degree assault claims | Apartment complexes, hotels, and shopping centers with domestic violence or fourth-degree assault exposure |
| Common mistakes | Assuming a negligence theory avoids the exclusion even when great bodily harm results | Assuming the buyback covers all violent-act claims without sublimits, including those involving deadly force |
What Are the Most Common Mistakes With Assault and Battery Exclusion?
- Assuming the exclusion only applies to bars: apartment complexes, hotels, retail centers, and event venues face the same exclusion and frequently lack any buyback, leaving them exposed to claims involving domestic violence, fifth-degree assault, or other physical harm incidents.
- Believing a negligent security claim escapes the exclusion because it is pled in negligence: most modern exclusion wording captures claims "arising out of" or "in any way related to" an assault or battery, regardless of the legal theory used or whether the incident resulted in criminal charges or a criminal record for the perpetrator.
- Failing to document the presence or absence of security staff, cameras, and lighting at the time of quoting, which weakens the agency's file if a coverage dispute arises later involving claims of reasonable fear or reasonable apprehension of danger.
- Overlooking that liquor liability policies often carry their own separate assault and battery exclusion, meaning a client may think they have doubled protection when neither policy responds to claims involving aggravated assault or attempted battery.
- Not offering a standalone assault and battery liability policy to high-risk hospitality or security clients, leaving a coverage gap that surfaces only after a severe injury claim involving substantial bodily harm, jail time exposure, or even felony charges against employees.
- Treating the reasonable-force carve-back as automatic coverage rather than a fact-specific defense that the carrier will scrutinize closely, examining whether a reasonable person would view the force as necessary to prevent immediate bodily harm or whether it constituted unlawful touching or offensive contact.
- Failing to advise clients that criminal defense and civil liability are separate legal issues requiring different legal services, and that a criminal defense lawyer handling criminal law matters does not address the insurance coverage gap.
How to Explain Assault and Battery Exclusion to a Client
Explaining assault and battery exclusion to a personal lines client
Your homeowners or renters policy generally will not pay if you intentionally hit someone or if someone gets hurt during a fight you started involving harmful contact or offensive contact. Insurance is built to cover accidents, not deliberate actions or intentional acts, so intentional violence almost always falls outside your liability coverage. If you are ever in that kind of situation involving physical contact that causes bodily harm, call us right away so we can walk through what, if anything, might apply. You may also need legal advice from a criminal defense attorney if criminal charges are filed, which is separate from the insurance coverage question.
Explaining assault and battery exclusion to a small business owner
Your general liability policy likely excludes claims involving fights, attacks, or physical altercations on your property that result in bodily harm, even if your staff was just trying to break it up or prevent imminent bodily harm. If you run a bar, restaurant with a late crowd, or any place where things can get physical and create reasonable fear among patrons, this gap could leave you paying out of pocket for a personal injury lawsuit. We can look at adding a specific endorsement or a standalone policy so you are not exposed if something happens that involves serious bodily injury, whether it is simple assault, aggravated assault, or even incidents involving a deadly weapon. This is especially important if you have had any prior incidents creating a pattern of threats or violence on your premises.
Explaining assault and battery exclusion to a CFO or risk manager
Your CGL program almost certainly carries an assault and battery exclusion, and depending on the carrier's wording, that exclusion may extend to negligent security claims even when pled purely in negligence and involving threat of violence or reasonable apprehension of danger. Given your property's security staffing and public foot traffic, along with potential exposure to domestic violence incidents in residential properties or aggravated assault claims in entertainment venues, I recommend we review the exact policy language and quote a standalone assault and battery liability limit alongside your primary program. This keeps your total cost of risk predictable instead of leaving a severe bodily injury claim involving great bodily harm or substantial bodily harm entirely self-insured. We should also discuss how this interacts with any criminal offense exposure your organization faces and whether you need separate legal representation for criminal defense versus civil liability matters.
Frequently Asked Questions About Assault and Battery Exclusion
Does assault and battery exclusion apply if my employee started the fight?
Yes, in most cases. The exclusion typically applies regardless of who initiated the altercation involving physical contact or harmful contact, and coverage is denied whether the aggressor was a patron, a third party, or the insured's own employee, unless a specific carve-back or buyback endorsement says otherwise. The employee may also face criminal battery or criminal assault charges, creating both a criminal offense matter and a civil liability exposure, potentially resulting in a criminal record or jail time.
Can a business buy back assault and battery coverage?
Many carriers offer a buyback endorsement that restores limited coverage for incidents involving bodily harm, often with a lower sublimit and higher deductible than the underlying GL policy. High-risk operations like nightclubs and security firms more commonly need a standalone assault and battery liability policy rather than relying on a buyback, especially if they face exposure to serious bodily injury claims, aggravated assault incidents, or situations involving deadly force or dangerous weapons.
Does the exclusion apply to claims framed as negligent security?
It often does. Broadly worded exclusions bar any claim "arising out of" an assault or battery, which typically captures negligent security theories even though the plaintiff's attorney frames the lawsuit around inadequate lighting, staffing, or cameras rather than the violent act itself. Courts have upheld these exclusions even when the claim alleges failure to prevent imminent bodily harm or protect against a well-founded fear of violence, and regardless of whether the underlying incident involved simple assault, aggravated battery, or other degrees of criminal offense.
Is reasonable force in self-defense always covered?
Not automatically. Most endorsements include a carve-back for reasonable force used to protect people or property from immediate bodily harm or imminent threat, but the carrier will investigate the facts closely using a reasonable person standard. Coverage can still be denied if the force used is judged excessive, constituted unlawful touching or offensive contact, or was unrelated to an active threat requiring deadly force or physical intervention to prevent great bodily harm.
Which businesses need a standalone assault and battery policy?
Bars, nightclubs, restaurants with late-night entertainment, security guard companies, apartment complexes, hotels, and any venue with a history of altercations are the clients most likely to need this specialty coverage, since their standard GL policy will almost certainly exclude these losses. Properties with prior incidents involving domestic violence, aggravated assault, threat of violence, or any pattern of threats should strongly consider standalone coverage. Businesses employing peace officers or security personnel who may need to use physical force or deadly force also face elevated exposure requiring specialized legal services and insurance protection.
Does liquor liability coverage fill this gap?
Liquor liability coverage addresses injuries caused by an intoxicated person the insured served, but it frequently carries its own assault and battery exclusion, so it does not reliably fill the gap left by the GL exclusion. Even when an incident involves overservice of alcohol leading to aggravated assault or criminal battery, both policies may deny coverage, leaving the insured without protection for serious bodily injury claims or legal representation costs.
How does this exclusion interact with criminal charges against the business or employees?
The assault and battery exclusion addresses civil liability and insurance coverage, which is separate from any criminal charges filed by law enforcement. If an employee commits criminal assault, criminal battery, or aggravated assault, they may need a criminal defense attorney or criminal defense lawyer for the criminal law matter, while the business faces the separate question of civil liability coverage. The exclusion typically bars coverage regardless of whether criminal charges are filed, whether the perpetrator faces jail time or prison time in county jail, or whether the incident results in a criminal record. Businesses should understand they may need both legal advice on criminal defense and separate legal representation for civil liability, as these are distinct legal issues requiring different legal services.
Related Insurance Terms
- Intentional Acts Exclusion: A broader liability exclusion barring coverage for injuries the insured intended or expected to cause, of which assault and battery exclusion is a specific application addressing intentional infliction of harm through physical contact.
- Liquor Liability Coverage: A separate coverage part addressing injuries caused by intoxicated patrons, often carrying its own assault and battery carve-out that agencies must check independently, particularly for incidents involving aggravated assault or criminal offense conduct.
- Negligent Security: A legal theory holding a property owner liable for failing to provide adequate security, frequently triggering the assault and battery exclusion despite being pled in negligence and involving claims of reasonable fear, reasonable apprehension, or well-founded fear of violence.
- Duty to Defend: The insurer's obligation to provide a legal defense and legal representation, which assault and battery exclusion can eliminate entirely if the claim falls squarely within the excluded conduct involving intentional acts or criminal offense behavior.
- Bodily Injury Coverage: The core CGL coverage grant for physical injury claims, from which assault and battery exclusion carves out intentional violent acts causing bodily harm, physical harm, or serious bodily injury.
- Reservation of Rights: A carrier notice preserving its right to later deny coverage, commonly issued while investigating whether an assault and battery exclusion applies to a pending claim involving harmful contact, offensive contact, or allegations of failure to prevent imminent bodily harm.
- Common Law Assault: The traditional legal definition of assault as creating reasonable apprehension or fear of harm in another person, which forms the basis for both criminal assault charges and civil tort claims that may trigger the insurance exclusion.
- Willful and Unlawful Acts: A related exclusionary concept addressing intentional conduct that violates law, often overlapping with assault and battery exclusion in cases involving criminal charges, criminal acts, or conduct resulting in a criminal record.
Sources and References
- Insurance Services Office (ISO). ISO Forms and Coverage Information.
About the Author
Justin Goodman, CIC, CCIP, CISC, CLCS, CRIS, PCIA, QCLS, MFHR
CEO and Co-Founder, Total CSR, Inc.
Justin Goodman is a third-generation insurance broker with over two decades in agency operations. He has trained more than 50,000 CSRs, account managers, and producers in commercial and personal lines coverage, from workers' compensation to construction risk. He was named 2024 Insurance Journal Agent of the Year and one of the nation's top five construction insurance experts by Risk & Insurance. He is the author of Retain, which applies cognitive science research on memory and knowledge transfer to insurance training, and speaks nationally on how agencies build durable technical expertise in their teams.