How have courts interpreted exclusionary language in an exclusionary clause in a claim for assault and battery?

Given such principles, we can only construe the exclusionary language one way: a suit based on assault and battery is excluded no matter who commits it. It is the happening of that event which compels application of the exclusion. This conclusion is buttressed by the final words of the exclusion: "... and assault shall not be deemed an accident, whether or not committed by or at the direction of the insured." No California case has [42 Cal.App.4th 127] considered this language but a Minnesota court has stated: "The only common sense definition attributable to the phrase 'whether or not committed by or at the direction of the insured' is 'whether committed by or at the direction of the insured, or not committed by or at the direction of the insured.' " (Ross v. City of Minneapolis (Minn.App.1987) 408 N.W.2d 910, 913-914, fn. omitted.)