claim was “ ‘based on’ ” the assault and battery. Id. at 111. Thus, his injuries were excluded from the policy. Id. ¶10 McAllister, however, is a significantly different case from the one before us. As the Court of Appeals noted, the claims in McAllister involved preassault negligence by club employees. Am. Best Food, Inc., 138 Wn. App. at 686 (citing McAllister, 103 Wn. App. at 110-11). In contrast, the claims in Dorsey’s complaint involve “ ‘discrete intervening act[s] of alleged negligence,’ ” many of which occurred after the assault. Id. at 687 (quoting United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Penuche’s, Inc., 128 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1997)). ¶11 Many states have found a preassault/postassault distinction in analyzing “assault and battery” exclusions. See, e.g., Penuche’s, 128 F.3d at 30-32 (<HOLDING>); Bucci v. Essex Ins. Co., 393 F.3d 285, 287,
holding that injuries sustained when a bouncer grabbed a bar patron in a  bear hug  to stop a fight did not arise out of the originating fight holding tavern owner not liable for injuries sustained when intoxicated patron assaulted a police officer holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest holding that tort law claim for injuries allegedly sustained because of negligently improper denial of coverage did not arise under act holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle