ST. LOUIS — The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company has filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, asserting it is not obligated to defend or indemnify several defendants named in a lawsuit stemming from the deadly mass shooting that occurred during the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl parade on Valentines Day in 2024.
Cincinnati issued a special event commercial general liability insurance policy to The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission for the period of Feb. 12 through Feb. 17, 2024, with a coverage limit of $1 million per occurrence and a $5 million general aggregate.
The insurance company now seeks a judicial declaration that it owes no defense or indemnity obligations to GKCSC, Union Station Kansas City Inc., the City of Kansas City, O’Neill Events & Marketing or Flyover Event Co. in connection with a wrongful death and injury lawsuit filed by the family of Lisa Lopez-Galvan.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by Michael Galvan, Marc Lopez-Galvan and Adriana Lopez-Galvan on June 18, alleges that Lisa Lopez-Galvan was killed and Marc Lopez-Galvan was injured after multiple individuals opened fire into a crowd gathered at the Chiefs' celebratory rally.
The lawsuit names several individuals as shooters, including Dominic Miller, Lyndell Mays and Terry Young, as well as unidentified John Doe defendants.
It also names several organizations — including GKCSC, Union Station, the City, O’Neill and Flyover — as defendants accused of failing to provide adequate security.
The lawsuit seeks damages for battery and wrongful death, alleging that the named shooters intentionally discharged firearms into the crowd with the intent to harm.
The petition argues that the organizational defendants, referred to as “Premises Defendants” and “Event Planning Defendants,” failed to implement sufficient safety measures, even though they allegedly should have foreseen the risk of gun violence due to prior incidents at and around Union Station and similar large events.
Cincinnati argues in its complaint that while GKCSC is the named insured under the policy, the other entities are either not named insureds or do not qualify as additional insureds under the terms of the policy.
Although Union Station and the city of Kansas City had agreements with GKCSC that referenced insurance requirements, Cincinnati maintains that these agreements do not trigger primary coverage obligations under its policy, and that any coverage provided to those entities is excess to any other available insurance.
The insurance company further argues that O’Neill Events & Marketing and Flyover Event Co. are not additional insureds because there is no agreement requiring GKCSC to obtain coverage for them. As a result, Cincinnati claims it owes no defense or indemnification to those entities in the underlying lawsuit.
Cincinnati claims that the plaintiffs’ allegations—that several gunmen opened fire in a crowded public space, resulting in at least 22 injuries and one death—are inherently tied to acts of assault and battery. Therefore, according to the complaint, the exclusion in the insurance policy precludes any potential coverage.
The insurer is asking the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify GKCSC or any of the other defendants under the Cincinnati Policy in relation to the claims brought by the Lopez-Galvan family.
The complaint notes that the injuries arose directly from intentional violent acts, which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy.
The underlying plaintiffs — Michael Galvan, Lisa Lopez-Galvan’s husband, and their children Marc and Adriana — are seeking unspecified damages for funeral expenses, medical costs, loss of income, and the loss of Lisa Lopez-Galvan’s companionship and support. The underlying suit alleges that the defendants' failure to secure the rally site directly contributed to the tragedy.
In addition to the Galvan family lawsuit, Cincinnati has also filed a related complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking a declaratory judgment that it owes no coverage in a separate lawsuit filed by Erika Reyes, Esmeralda Ortiz and Kathleen Martinez.
According to that complaint, Reyes and two of her children, along with Martinez’s child, were shot during the rally, resulting in serious injuries and trauma.
The plaintiffs in that case also accuse the same defendants — GKCSC, the City, Union Station, O’Neill, and Flyover — of negligence in organizing and securing the event.
The lawsuit points to a range of alleged failures, including the lack of trained security personnel, absence of security checkpoints, and failure to deploy screening technologies such as magnetometers.
The plaintiffs in the federal case seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief requiring improved safety protocols at future public events, including the 2026 World Cup.
Cincinnati asserts that none of the alleged acts fall within the scope of its policy coverage. The insurer maintains that the violent nature of the incident and the intentional conduct alleged in both lawsuits trigger the Assault or Battery Exclusion and do not entitle any of the defendants to coverage under the policy.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number: 4:25-cv-00568
