Lampliter Dinner Theater, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986 · Evidence

792 F.2d 1036 (11th Cir. 1986)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceinsurance exclusionliquor liabilityhost liquor liabilityambiguitybad faithfraud statute of limitationsinquiry notice

Facts

After two minors died in an automobile accident following consumption of alcoholic beverages at Lampliter, wrongful death suits were filed against Lampliter. Liberty denied coverage under Lampliter's 1981 policy, relying on a liquor-liability exclusion and a host-liquor clause that applied only when the insured was not engaged in the business of selling or serving alcohol; Lampliter had a liquor license and derived substantial revenue from liquor sales. Lampliter later sued Liberty, asserting written-contract, bad-faith, fraud, oral-contract, and reformation claims, and also added Mocabee as a plaintiff. Lampliter had also executed an assignment to the victims' parents, but reserved certain claimed damages beyond the state-court verdicts.

Issue

Whether the district court correctly dismissed Lampliter's written-contract, bad-faith, and fraud claims; properly denied Liberty summary judgment based on Lampliter's assignment; and acted within its discretion in dropping Mocabee as a party plaintiff. The case also raised whether settlement of the underlying claims could be used to prove Liberty's bad faith.

Rule

An insurance policy exclusion is enforced as written when its language is unambiguous, and courts will not manufacture ambiguity by strained reasoning. A bad-faith denial claim fails if the insurer had any lawful, reasonable, or debatable legal or factual basis to deny coverage. In Alabama fraud actions, the limitations period begins when the fraud is discovered or when facts would provoke a reasonable person's inquiry and lead to discovery, not when the defendant finally denies liability. Settlement offers or settlements are not admissible to prove liability under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. On summary judgment, ambiguities in an assignment must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party, and Rule 21 permits a court to drop a party in its discretion.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

River Bend Bistro in Columbus, Georgia, holds a liquor license and earns about 18% of its revenue from alcohol sales. After a patron causes an injury following drinks served at the bistro, the bistro seeks coverage under a liability policy excluding claims arising from liability of an insured engaged in the business of selling or serving alcohol, except for host-liquor liability when the insured is not engaged in that business.

If River Bend sues the insurer for breach of the written policy, which is the strongest argument for the insurer?

Explanation. The majority enforced the exclusion as written where the insured was plainly in the business of selling alcohol and refused to manufacture ambiguity by strained reasoning. A host-liquor carveout applying only when the insured is not engaged in that business does not help a liquor-selling establishment. The opinion also rejected the notion that the insurer must prove the insured understood the exclusion before relying on it.