KANSAS CITY. — The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify several parties, including The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission (GKCSC), the City of Kansas City, Union Station Kansas City Inc., O’Neill Events & Marketing and Flyover Event Co., in connection with claims stemming from the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl rally in 2024.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the complaint states that Cincinnati issued a special event commercial general liability insurance policy to GKCSC with a coverage period from Feb. 12 to Feb. 17, 2024. The policy included a $1 million per-occurrence limit and a $5 million general aggregate limit.
Cincinnati asserts that while GKCSC is a named insured under the policy, the other defendants are not.
The insurer is asking the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the named parties in an ongoing lawsuit filed by Erika Reyes, Esmeralda Ortiz and Kathleen Martinez—each suing on behalf of themselves and their minor children.
The plaintiffs allege injuries resulting from the shooting at the February rally, which was held outside Union Station and attended by thousands of fans celebrating the Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory.
The underlying state court lawsuit, filed June 2 in Jackson County, names numerous defendants, including the individuals accused of opening fire into the crowd — Dominic Miller, Lyndell Mays, Terry Young and three unidentified individuals referred to as John Does 1 through 3.
The complaint states that Reyes and two of her children, along with Martinez’s child, were shot during the rally, resulting in extensive injuries and lasting trauma.
Cincinnati’s federal complaint focuses on whether it owes coverage to the event organizers and property owners named in the state suit.
The plaintiffs in that case allege that the event and premises defendants — GKCSC, the City, Union Station, O’Neill and Flyover — were negligent in planning and securing the rally, citing a failure to implement basic safety measures despite known risks associated with large public events and prior nearby shootings, including one near Union Station in January 2024.
According to the petition in the state lawsuit, the shooting at the rally was deliberate and carried out with intent to harm. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to make the premises safe and did not adequately prepare for or respond to foreseeable threats.
Specific allegations include the failure to employ trained security personnel, establish security checkpoints, enforce a clear bag policy, provide crowd management and evacuation plans, or utilize appropriate screening technologies such as magnetometers.
Cincinnati argues that these alleged failures and the resulting injuries fall outside the scope of the insurance policy it issued to GKCSC. The insurer also emphasizes that the other named defendants are not insured under the policy and that the nature of the underlying claims — particularly those involving intentional acts — do not trigger coverage obligations.
The underlying lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief requiring the event and premises defendants to implement stricter safety measures at future large-scale gatherings, including the upcoming 2026 World Cup.
The plaintiffs are requesting recovery for physical and emotional injuries, past and future medical expenses and other damages.
In its federal complaint, Cincinnati requests that the court declare it has no duty to defend, indemnify or contribute to any settlement related to the underlying claims. The company is also demanding a jury trial to resolve the matter.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number: 4:25-cv-00545
