A major insurance dispute has landed in Missouri federal court, as Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company asks a judge to rule on its coverage after the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl rally shooting.
On July 22, Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The insurer is seeking a court determination of its rights and obligations under a commercial general liability insurance policy it issued to The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission, a Missouri non-profit corporation.
The policy in question, number CSU0225122, covered the period from Feb. 12, 2024, to Feb. 17, 2024, and provided limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 general aggregate. The complaint states that an actual controversy exists over whether Cincinnati must provide coverage or a defense for claims arising from the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl Rally on Feb. 14, 2024.
The underlying lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2025, by Michael Galvan, Marc Lopez-Galvan, and Adriana Lopez-Galvan. The suit seeks damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiffs, including a count for battery causing the wrongful death of Lisa Lopez-Galvan, who was killed by gunshot wounds, and for injuries to Marc Lopez-Galvan, who was also allegedly shot at the rally. The shooting is alleged to have been committed by Dominic Miller, Lyndell Mays, Terry Young, and three unnamed individuals referred to as John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3.
Defendants in the underlying lawsuit include The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission, Union Station Kansas City, Inc., the City of Kansas City, Missouri, O’Neill Events & Marketing, and Flyover Event Co., LLC. The complaint also references other parties named in the underlying suit, but Cincinnati’s action focuses on its obligations to the above entities.
Cincinnati’s complaint highlights the policy’s “Assault Or Battery” exclusion, which states that the insurance does not apply to bodily injury that in any way arises out of an actual, threatened, or alleged assault or battery, whether caused by or at the instigation or direction of any insured, their employees, patrons, or any other person. The exclusion also applies to the failure to prevent or suppress assault or battery, failure to provide an environment safe from assault or battery (including failure to provide adequate security), and negligent employment, supervision, training, or retention of a person whose conduct would be excluded by the assault or battery exclusion.
The complaint further notes that Union Station Kansas City, Inc. and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, were named as additional insureds under the policy due to written agreements with The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission. However, Cincinnati maintains that any coverage for these additional insureds is subject to all terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the policy, including the assault or battery exclusion. The complaint also states that coverage for additional insureds would be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance, unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Cincinnati is asking the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission, Union Station Kansas City, Inc., the City of Kansas City, Missouri, O’Neill Events & Marketing, Flyover Event Co., LLC, Michael Galvan, Marc Lopez-Galvan, or Adriana Lopez-Galvan for claims, loss, or damages in the underlying lawsuit. The insurer also seeks a declaration that it has no duty to contribute to any settlement or proposed settlement of the underlying lawsuit.
It is important to note that these are claims made by Cincinnati in its complaint, not established facts. The court has not yet made any decision on whether the insurer’s interpretation of its policy will prevail, or whether the exclusions will ultimately relieve it of coverage obligations.
For insurance professionals, this case is a clear example of how policy exclusions can be tested following a major public event. The outcome could influence how insurers approach coverage for large gatherings and violent incidents in the future. As the case proceeds, the industry will be watching closely to see how the court interprets the policy and the reach of the assault or battery exclusion.
