FIGHT OVER BASEBALL PARKING FEE RESULTING IN DEATH

Ninth District Court of Appeals:  Haught v. U.S.F.&G

REMEMBER THIS ONE?

BASEBALL MELEE OVER PARKING FEE ENDING IN DEATH WHEN COACH JOINED THE FRAY AND ALLEGEDLY SHOVED THE DECEDENT TO THE GROUND.

Well...... under the insurance policy that was acting in capacity as a coach resulting in insured status for the assailant.

KEY TERMS:  "Acting in Capacity as Coach / Named Insured Status / Wrongful Death / Fight over Baseball Parking Fee / Commercial General Liability Policy / Coverage"

Our firm has first-hand experience dealing with assault and battery coverage issues, including wrongful death.  Although this case did not deal with the "intended/expected" or "assault and battery" exclusions, it is likely that those exclusions became a part of the coverage analysis in separate related coverage arguments in Haught case.  Did we mention that our founder's son just signed a National Letter of Intent to The Ohio State University baseball program?  So, we know a bit about baseball too.  Had to throw that in.  Very proud.  Here's a summary of the Haught case for you.

In Haught v. U.S.F.&G., the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court finding of no-coverage. The case hinged on the definition of "capacity" and whether the coach was still within his capacity as coach when he ran to join the melee that was occurring with a crowd over the charging of a parking fee for a baseball tournament.

The Court had this to say: Certainly, there are actions a coach could take during a tournament which would be considered acting outside his or her capacity as a coach. For example, a coach acting on his or her own personal interests would not be acting in his or her capacity as a coach, whereas a coach acting on behalf of the team’s interests would be acting within his or her capacity as a coach. Thus, we conclude the appropriate issue is whether Mr. Haught was acting on behalf of his own personal interests or on behalf of the interests of the team.

Here, given that the mêlée was occurring approximately eighty feet from where Mr. Haught was conducting a team meeting, that the argument grew heated and became violent, and that Mr. Haught’s assistant coach left the team meeting and ran towards the fight, we conclude that Mr. Haught was acting within his capacity as a coach when he ran after his assistant coach and into the crowd. Mr. Haught’s actions were not completely unconnected to his responsibilities as the coach of the team given the proximity of the fight, its escalation, and those involved in it. As such, the coach was acting within his capacity as a coach and was insured under the policy.

Read the case here.