This was a highly publicized case involving world-renowned rap artist Corey "C-Murder" Miller who shot and killed a 14 year old boy at a rap concert in a New Orleans area bar. C-Murder was twice convicted of second degree murder of Steve Thomas. He is currently serving a life sentence at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, LA.

Steve Thomas' parents file a Petition for Damages against Corey Miller, the Platinum Club, and the club's commercial general liability insurer for damages resulting from their son's tragic death.  Mr. Roux was retained by the club's insurer to represent it in the coverage dispute.

The policy at issue excluded losses arising out of assault and battery, whether caused by, at the instruction of, the direction of, or the negligence of the insured or its employees and allegations that the insured's negligent acts, errors, or omissions in connection with the hiring, retention, supervision or control of the employees, agents, or representatives caused, contributed to, related to, or accounted for the assault and battery.

Mr. Roux filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on behalf of the club's London based insurance company alleging that the injuries complained of were sustained as a result of an assault and battery and thus, they was no coverage for the plaintiff's claims.  The plaintiff's argued that the policy excluded claims arising out of assault and batteries and allegations that the negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the hiring, retention, supervision or control of the employees, agents, or representatives caused or contributed to or related to the assault and battery. The Trial Court granted Mr. Roux's Motion for Summary Judgement. On Appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal discounted the plaintiffs' arguments and found that whether the battery was committed by a patron, employee, or any other individual is of no consequence under the terms of the assault and battery contained in the policy.  According to the Fifth Circuit, the exclusion clearly denied coverage for any claims arising out of assault and batteries irrespective of who made or allowed the harmful or offensive contact. The Fifth Circuit found that the exclusionary clause was clear and unambiguous and must be given affect. According to the Fifth Circuit "there was no reasonable interpretation of the policy when applied to the disputed materials facts of the case under which coverage could be afforded".

Thomas v. Miller, 14-115 (La. App. 5th Cir., 9/24/14), 159 So.3d, 491 (2014).