What happened: Society Insurance alleges its policies do not cover an Illinois bar where a patron was shot outside after an altercation
Who's involved: Society Insurance (insurer) and Monkey Business Inc., d/b/a Monkey Biz (insured bar)
What's at stake: Whether the insurer must defend and cover the bar - or can walk away entirely
Why it matters: Broad assault and battery exclusions can shut out even negligence-based security claims, a key question for hospitality underwriting
Where it stands: Filed October 12, 2026
A patron walked into an Illinois bar called Monkey Biz one evening in July 2024 and left with a gunshot wound that severed an artery in his right shoulder.
Now his insurer wants a court to confirm it does not have to pay.
Society Insurance has asked a federal judge to rule that it owes nothing - no defense, no coverage - to Monkey Business Inc., the company behind the bar. The insurer filed its complaint on October 12, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois, targeting both its primary business liability policy and a separate commercial umbrella policy.
The patron's own lawsuit, filed in July 2026, lays out a sequence that escalated fast. He arrived at Monkey Biz to meet family and friends, according to that complaint. Earlier the same day, a family friend had threatened to shoot him. That same person later turned up at the bar.
At about 11:45 p.m., the patron was allegedly pushed out of the venue by the family friend and two strangers. One of the strangers then pulled a handgun and fired, according to the filing.
The patron sued the bar alongside six police officers. Against the officers, he alleged a federal civil rights violation. Against Monkey Business, he alleged negligence - specifically, that the bar failed to provide professional security to keep its patrons safe.
Society's complaint tackles two policies issued to Monkey Business - a primary business liability policy (BP10027718) and a commercial umbrella (CU10028436), both running from April 27, 2024, to April 27, 2025.
On each policy, the insurer makes two arguments. The first: the shooting was not an "occurrence" under either policy. Both policies define that term as "an accident," and Society says what happened outside Monkey Biz was intentional, not accidental.
The second argument is the one with broader implications. Both policies carry an Illinois Assault, Battery or Assault and Battery Exclusion. That exclusion does not just strip coverage for the violent act itself. According to the policy language quoted in the complaint, it also bars coverage for bodily injury arising from the failure to prevent an assault, the failure to provide a safe environment, the failure to warn of environmental dangers that could lead to an assault, and even assault resulting from negligent hiring, supervision, or training.
That last point is where it cuts deepest for the bar. The patron's negligence claim is built on the argument that Monkey Business should have had professional security on site. But the exclusion is written to capture exactly that kind of claim - not just the punch or the gunshot, but the venue's alleged failure to stop it from happening.
The tension at the heart of this case is one hospitality and liquor liability underwriters see regularly. Injured patrons and their lawyers frame bar shootings and assaults as negligent-security claims, arguing the venue fell short of its duty of care. Insurers respond with assault and battery exclusions broad enough to reach not just the violence, but the alleged failure to prevent it.
Whether this particular exclusion holds up against a negligence claim built on the absence of professional security is the question that will play out in the Central District of Illinois. For claims teams handling hospitality risks, the outcome could sharpen how these exclusions are tested when the insured's alleged failure is not about the assault itself but about what the venue did - or did not - have in place beforehand.
The allegations in Society Insurance's complaint have not been tested, and no court has ruled on the merits.
