LaRose v. McFarland

**LaRose v. McFarland: Insurance Company Wins Coverage Dispute** This case involved a workplace assault incident where someone was injured and sued their employer for negligent hiring, training, and supervision. The employer, Burlington Insurance Company, had a commercial insurance policy and expected it to cover the costs of defending against and potentially paying for these claims. The court ruled in favor of Burlington Insurance Company, granting their request for summary judgment. The court found that Burlington's insurance policy contained specific exclusions that prevented coverage. The "Assault and Battery Exclusion" meant the insurance wouldn't cover claims related to the workplace assault, including the negligent hiring and supervision allegations. Additionally, the "Punitive Damages Exclusion" barred coverage for any punitive damages that might be awarded. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling highlights an important gap in workplace protection. Even when employers have insurance policies, those policies may contain exclusions that leave assault victims without coverage for their claims. Workers should be aware that their employer's insurance might not cover incidents involving workplace violence, potentially making it harder to recover damages for injuries. This emphasizes the importance of employers having proper hiring practices and workplace safety measures, since insurance may not protect them—or compensate victims—when violence occurs.