Insurance and who pays in negligent security casesWe look for every policy that can pay.

This page was checked against California statutes, court decisions and the Department of Insurance's surplus lines list on November 11, 2026. It is part of our guide to negligent security in Los Angeles, and the general rules for injuries on someone else's property are on our premises liability page.

Responsible parties

When someone is attacked on property in California, the people who may be responsible include the property owner, the property management company, the security company and any business that controlled the area. Each may have its own liability insurance. California requires every licensed private patrol operator to keep commercial general liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 for any one loss or occurrence (Business and Professions Code section 7583.40). Whether a policy pays for a particular attack depends on its terms, so the policies must be obtained and read.

Control matters as much as ownership. Under CACI No. 1002, "A person controls property that the person does not own or lease when the person uses the property as if it were the person's own."

Defendants and their insurance

Each kind of defendant below reaches liability by a different route and tends to carry different insurance. The policies in a real case decide. Our guide to security guard and security company liability covers guard companies in detail.

Coverage for negligence

An owner's liability policy can cover a negligent security claim even though the attacker acted on purpose. Insurance Code section 533 says: "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others." In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 216, the California Supreme Court concluded that an employer's negligent hiring, retention and supervision of an employee who molested a student could be an "accident" under a liability policy. The word, the Court explained, "refers to the conduct of the insured for which liability is sought to be imposed."

The attacker's own insurance

The attacker's own liability insurance, if the attacker has any, generally will not pay for the attack. In Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302, the insured had committed the assault, and the California Supreme Court rejected the view that whether there was an "accident" "must be determined from the injured party's perspective." The insurance usually comes from businesses whose liability rests on their own negligence.

Assault and battery exclusions

Some liability policies exclude claims based on an assault or battery, and some limit them to a smaller amount. A California Court of Appeal held that such an exclusion applied "no matter who commits" the assault and whatever legal theory the injured person uses (Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121). Identifying every policy, including policies held by a security company or a management company, is part of the early work in these cases.

The court in Century Transit explained that the exclusion it enforced "places the focus not upon an insured's conduct or intent, but rather upon the type of event in which a plaintiff has sustained an injury."

Sublimits and other exclusions

Some policies cover assaults only up to a smaller amount, called a sublimit. In August 2025, Business Insurance reported that a typical single-location habitational (apartment) account "is going to have some sort of sublimited assault and battery, (sexual assault and molestation), firearms coverage, or it's going to be excluded," with sublimits of "call it $250,000 or $500,000." In July 2025, the broker AmWINS reported that "Firearms/weapons exclusions are commonplace across both real estate and hospitality sectors." These are trade reports, not law. A sublimit may also be shared by every claim in the same policy year, so each policy has to be read.

Expected or intended exclusions

An "expected or intended" exclusion looks at the insured's intent, not the attacker's. The policy in Century Transit defined an occurrence as an accident causing injury "neither expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured." The attacker's intent alone does not trigger it for the owner or the security company. It matters when the attacker is also an insured, such as an employee. In Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2010) 49 Cal.4th 315, the California Supreme Court concluded that, under a homeowners policy with a "separate insurance" clause, "the intentional act of one insured would not, in and of itself, bar liability coverage of another insured." Whether that reasoning reaches a business policy is a question for a lawyer.

One attack with several victims

Several people hurt in one attack may have to share one policy limit. Many liability policies set a limit for each "occurrence." In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Elizabeth N. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1232, the parties agreed "that the number of occurrences depends on the cause of injury rather than the number of injurious effects," and the court enforced policy language applying the limit "regardless of the number of insureds, claims made or persons injured." We have not found a California appellate decision that counts occurrences in a single attack on several people. The first claim to settle can use up a shared limit, so the policy should be read early.

Umbrella and excess policies

An umbrella or excess policy adds coverage above the primary policy's limit, but it can follow the primary policy's exclusions and add its own. Whether an umbrella pays above an assault sublimit depends on its wording. AmWINS reported in July 2025 that "there are few Umbrella/Excess carriers willing to schedule A&B with defense inside the limit," A&B meaning assault and battery. Every layer's declarations page, the page that lists the insurer, the limits and the dates, should be requested along with its endorsements.

Surplus lines insurers

A surplus lines insurer, also called a nonadmitted insurer, is one "not licensed by the State of California." Every surplus lines policy must carry the notice in Insurance Code section 1764.1(b), which says: "The insurer does not participate in any of the insurance guarantee funds created by California law. Therefore, these funds will not pay your claims or protect your assets if the insurer becomes insolvent and is unable to make payments as promised." The insurers in Century Transit and Liberty Surplus appear, the first under a later name, on the Department of Insurance's List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers, current as of September 15, 2026.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice (Civil Code section 3294), and against a company the conduct must involve an officer, director or managing agent. The California Supreme Court has said that public policy prohibits insurance from paying punitive damages (PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 310).

Because no insurer can pay them, punitive damages put a company's own money at risk (Civil Code section 3294; PPG Industries).

The attacker's share

In California, a jury can assign part of the fault to the attacker. Each defendant pays only its own share of noneconomic damages, such as pain and emotional distress (Civil Code section 1431.2), and a Court of Appeal has applied that rule to a bar whose patron was assaulted by a third person (Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1). Economic damages, such as medical bills and lost earnings, are not divided this way.

See section 1431.2 and Weidenfeller. Our guide to when the attacker is mostly at fault explains how a jury divides fault.

Owners with no coverage

When the owner's policy excludes the attack, or the owner has no insurance, other sources matter. After a judgment for bodily injury, the injured person can sue the insurer directly, but only "on the policy and subject to its terms and limitations" (Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2)), so an exclusion that applies still defeats the claim. The manager, the security company and other businesses at the property may have their own policies. A judgment against an owner with no applicable insurance is worth only what the owner has, such as the building. The California Victim Compensation Board calls itself "a payor of last resort" for some crime-related expenses, as our guide to the criminal case, CalVCB and your civil claim explains.

Finding the policy limits

Each policy's limits are on its declarations page, which can be obtained once a lawsuit is filed. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 allows discovery of "the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment," including "the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage," and whether the carrier "is disputing the agreement's coverage." A licensed guard company's insurer reports its policy to the state (Business and Professions Code section 7583.39(c)). California sets rules for a time-limited demand, a written offer to settle within the policy limits that gives the insurer at least 30 days to accept (33 if sent only by mail), on claims under "commercial premises liability insurance policies" and some others (Code of Civil Procedure sections 999.1 and 999.5).

Filing deadlines

Most California injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of the injury (Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1). Our guide to negligent security deadlines lists the exceptions, and the deadline calculator gives a starting point. If an attack was fatal, the family's claim follows the wrongful death rules. Our negligent security evidence checklist lists the records to request after an attack.

Sources cited

• Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 2026 edition, Nos. 450C, 1002 and 1005: courts.ca.gov
• Insurance Code sections 533, 1764.1 and 11580: california.public.law
• Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 999.1, 999.5 and 2017.210: california.public.law
• Business and Professions Code sections 7583.39 and 7583.40: california.public.law
• Civil Code sections 1431.2, 1714, 3294, 5800 and 5805, and Penal Code section 1202.4: california.public.law
• Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 216: CourtListener
• Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302: CourtListener
• Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121: CourtListener
• Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2010) 49 Cal.4th 315: CourtListener
• State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Elizabeth N. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1232: CourtListener
• PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 310: CourtListener
• Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1: CourtListener
• Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474: CourtListener
• Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224: CourtListener
• Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666: CourtListener
• Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181: CourtListener
• Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490: CourtListener
• California Department of Insurance, List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers: insurance.ca.gov
• California Victim Compensation Board, What Is Covered: victims.ca.gov
• Business Insurance, "Assault and battery coverage shrinks for real estate firms," August 12, 2025: businessinsurance.com
• AmWINS market insight, July 11, 2025: amwins.com
• IndependentAgent.com, May 7, 2025: independentagent.com