A specialty insurer is asking a New Mexico federal court to rule it’s off the hook for a wrongful death claim after a fatal shooting tied to a security firm’s client.
On August 18, 2025, Kinsale Insurance Company filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking a declaration that it doesn’t have to defend or pay out for T.R.I.B.E., LLC, which does business as Tribe Security Service, and Nettie Cooley, personally and as Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Elon Cooley. The case centers on a shooting in the early morning of May 6, 2023, when Elon Cooley died after patronizing two bars. According to the complaint, Cooley’s estate alleges that Tribe Security Service undertook a duty to escort Cooley safely to his vehicle and failed in this duty.
The estate’s wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the Eleventh District Court, McKinley County, State of New Mexico, on January 19, 2024, under the caption Cooley v. Palacios et al., Case No. D-1113-CV-2024-00034. Tribe Security Service is insured under Commercial General Liability Policy No. 0100160668-2, issued by Kinsale Insurance Company, with effective dates from August 19, 2023, to August 19, 2024. The policy was cancelled effective November 15, 2023. Kinsale’s complaint states that Tribe Security Service tendered a claim for coverage under the policy on or about February 8, 2024, requesting defense and indemnification relating to the underlying lawsuit. By letter dated March 8, 2024, Kinsale disclaimed coverage for the claim.
Kinsale’s complaint asserts that the policy only provides coverage for claims for damages because of bodily injury that are first made against insureds during the policy period or applicable extended reporting period and first reported to the company during the policy period. The complaint alleges that the policy’s basic extended reporting period expired on December 15, 2023, and that the underlying complaint was filed on January 19, 2024. Kinsale asserts that no claim was first made against Tribe Security Service until after the policy had already been cancelled, and no claim was first reported in writing to Kinsale during the policy period or during the basic extended reporting period.
Kinsale also points to the “Absolute Exclusion – Firearms” endorsement, which states: “This insurance does not apply to any claim or ‘suit’ arising directly or indirectly out of, related to, or in any way involving the use of any firearm.” The complaint further cites the “Exclusion – Assault, Battery, Abuse, or Molestation” endorsement, which excludes coverage for any claim or suit for bodily injury arising out of, related to, or in any way involving any actual or alleged assault, battery, abuse, or molestation.
The policy includes a “Duty to Defend Exclusion,” stating that where there is no coverage under the policy, there is no duty to defend. Additionally, there is an “Exclusion – Punitive Damages,” which states that the insurance does not apply to any claim or suit for any punitive or exemplary damages, fines, or penalties arising out of bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury.
Kinsale seeks a declaratory judgment that the policy does not afford coverage for the subject claim or the underlying lawsuit because: (1) no claim as defined in the policy was first made against Tribe Security Service until after the policy had already been cancelled; (2) no claim was first reported in writing to Kinsale during the policy period or during the basic extended reporting period; (3) there was no “occurrence” as defined by the policy; (4) the subject claim is excluded by the Absolute Exclusion – Firearms endorsement; and (5) the subject claim is excluded by the Exclusion – Assault, Battery, Abuse, or Molestation endorsement. Kinsale further seeks a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Tribe Security Service or Nettie Cooley for any judgment arising out of the underlying lawsuit.
At this stage, the case is at the complaint phase, and no court has ruled on the merits of Kinsale’s arguments or the underlying facts. The outcome will depend on the court’s interpretation of the policy language, the timing of the claim, and the applicability of the exclusions cited by Kinsale.
All statements above are drawn directly from the filed complaint and reflect only the claims made by Kinsale Insurance Company. No statements of fact have been made beyond what is contained in the document.
