Under Missouri law, an insurance policy will be construed to provide coverage for an injury that “was proximately caused by two events” even if one of the events is subject to an exclusion, so long as the “differing allegations of causation are independent and distinct.” Richards v. Bunkhouse Bar & Grill, LLC, 719 S.W.3d 810, 820 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025). The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District in Richards, is the most recent appellate decision to address the often-ill-defined concurrent proximate cause doctrine.
The plaintiff in Richards sustained injuries while patronizing the Bunkhouse Bar when she was allegedly threatened and attacked by the owner and other unknown patrons. Id. The plaintiff sued the Bunkhouse Bar for negligence and its owner for battery. Id. The owner claimed self-defense. Id. At trial, the jury found in favor of the owner as to the battery claim. Id. However, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff as to her claim of negligence against the Bunkhouse Bar, but attributed her 10% comparative fault and awarded damages in the sum of $450,000. Id. at 814–15.
Bunkhouse Bar’s insurer only agreed to indemnify $25,000 of the judgment pursuant to a limited optional coverage while denying indemnity for the remainder of the judgment based on an assault and battery exclusion. Id. The plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to equitably garnish the unsatisfied judgment against the insurer, and the court in Richards affirmed.
The court held that any additional coverage was excluded by the assault and battery exclusion and thus the insurer satisfied its obligations by payment of $25,000. Id. at 817–20. Next, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the concurrent proximate cause doctrine avoided the assault and battery exclusion. Id. at 820.
The concurrent proximate cause rule only applies if the injury resulted from “a covered cause that is truly independent and distinct from the excluded cause.” Id. at 821 (quoting Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.3d 340, 348 (Mo. banc 2015). The court distinguished Adams v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London—a case with similar facts, with the plaintiff being injured while waiting outside of a nightclub, but not necessarily targeted with violence. Id. at 821. The court reasoned the plaintiff’s claim for battery was not “mutually exclusive” from the Bunkhouse Bar’s alleged negligent supervision. Id. at 822. Instead, the court concluded the alleged negligence and alleged battery “were related and interdependent acts.” Id. “Without the assault and battery, [the plaintiff] would not have been injured, and she would not have been injured, and she would have had no basis for the negligence action.” Id.
The recent decision in Richards provides a clean analysis of the concurrent proximate cause doctrine with a focus on the alleged causes of the plaintiff’s injuries. While favorable to insurers in Missouri, there has been minimal consistency on the concurrent proximate cause doctrine, with each decision usually limited to its facts.