“Those injuries cannot be severed and allocated to different causes, whether those ‘causes’ are separate legal theories or ‘claims’ relating to the same act or are actually separate acts that combined to cause the injuries.” Admiral Ins. Co. v. Price-Williams, 129 So.3d 991, 1002, 2013 WL 2149491, *10 (Ala. May 17, 2013). As such, Robinson’s negligence claim is inextricably tied with the fact of his assauH/battery and the injuries which resulted. Thus, the Hudson policy excludes coverage based on Crown Theater’s negligent omissions which resulted in Robinson’s assault). See e.g., United Nat. Ins. Co., 945 F.2d at 212-215; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Who Subscribe to Policy No. TCN 002517 v. Karma Korner, LLC, 2011 WL 1150466, *4 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 28, 2011) (<HOLDING>). In sum, “liability-policy clauses that
holding similar exclusion excluding coverage for any loss was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for um claims even though such claims were not expressly mentioned in the exclusion holding the oah erroneously applied the exclusion to a diagnosis given in 1993 before the exclusion was enacted holding that the assaultbattery exclusion applied to claims for negligence resulting in a shooting death holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding that evidence of recklessness by one officer in events leading up to shooting was immaterial in evaluating objective reasonableness of shooting officers decision to use deadly force in the situation he faced at time of shooting