Firearms clauses - a safety catch for insurers against liability

Image source: senivpetro from Freepik

Two patrons of a Georgia-based lounge brought lawsuits after suffering injuries during a violent incident at the establishment. One patron was shot, while the other was trampled in the ensuing panic.

Both alleged that the lounge operator failed to provide adequate security despite prior criminal activity in the area. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the lounge under its policy.

Issues for court determination

The court was asked to determine the following issues:

1. Whether the insurer had a duty to defend the insured in the underlying lawsuits.
2. Whether the insurer had a duty to indemnify the insured for any potential liability arising from those lawsuits.

Public Liability & Personal Injury

Public liability vs personal negligence: Judgment a warning against opportunistic litigation

Mtho Maphumulo  5 Dec 2024

Insurance principles and policy terms

The case centred on two key coverage provisions:

1. Coverage A: Bodily injury liability
2. Coverage B: Personal and advertising injury liability

Both were modified by a firearms or weapons exclusion, which excluded coverage for injuries “arising out of firearms or weapons or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of firearms or weapons”.

Under Georgia law

The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and is triggered by the potential for coverage based on the allegations. Exclusion clauses must be strictly construed, and any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the insured.

Consumer Law

Court clarifies what constitutes a 'claim' in insurance disputes

Jean-Paul Rudd  11 Sep 2025

Application of Policy terms in the case

The court found as follows:

The injuries - being shot and trampled during a shooting - arose directly from the use of firearms. Further, even claims of false imprisonment (being unable to flee) were linked to the presence of armed assailants. The exclusion applied because “but for” the firearms, the injuries would not have occurred.

The court rejected arguments that the insured’s alleged negligence in failing to secure the premises could independently trigger coverage. It held that the firearms were the legally significant cause of the injuries.

Court’s decision

The court found in favour of the insurer and held that:

1. The firearms exclusion unambiguously barred coverage.
2. The insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured in the underlying lawsuits.