Resident on Resident Altercation
What this clause says
This Policy does not apply to any Claim arising out of assault or battery committed by any person, including any Resident, or out of any failure to prevent or suppress the same.
What this actually means
When one resident injures another, the claim against the facility is about assessment, placement, supervision, and whether known behavioral risk was managed. The complication is that the same facts also constitute an assault, which means any assault and battery sublimit or exclusion on the form may capture the claim even though the theory pleaded against the facility is negligence.
What it means for an operator
This is where the assault and battery wording does its real damage in memory care. Behavioral expressions of dementia are clinically expected, and a facility that admits residents with documented aggression has accepted a known and foreseeable risk. That is a professional liability claim in substance. But if the exclusion or sublimit is drafted to capture anything arising out of assault or battery regardless of how pleaded, the negligence theory does not rescue the coverage. Read that phrase specifically. Where it appears, the practical options are to negotiate a carve-back for resident-on-resident incidents or to accept that a core memory care exposure sits at the sublimit rather than the full limit.
How this evaluates
The Policy Checker applies these rules in order; the first match wins.
See this in your policy
Check this term against your own program.
Run the Policy CheckerRelated clauses
Common questions about this clause
- Is a resident on resident altercation covered, or does the assault and battery sublimit capture it?
- Is an elopement claim covered under my memory care policy?
- What covers a claim that staff financially exploited a resident?
- Does abuse coverage apply when one resident harms another?
- What coverage responds when a resident elopes and dies?