In Zelda, Inc. v. Northland Ins. Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1252, the insured submitted a claim for an incident at its restaurant. (Zelda, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1256-1257.) A police report indicated that when a restaurant employee announced last call at 1:45 a.m., "customer refused to give up his drink and attempted to punch employee, who then defended himself by punching customer." (Ibid.) Customer, through correspondence and ultimately a complaint, alleged he suffered damages as a result of the employee throwing customer to the ground and kicking him in the face. (Id. at p. 1257.) The complaint included claims for premises liability, negligence, and intentional tort. (Ibid.) The first amended complaint included claims for assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring, training, and supervising; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Ibid.) The insurer refused to provide a defense on multiple occasions, citing an assault and battery exclusion in the policy. (Zelda, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1257-1258.) The policy provided no coverage for "'"bodily injury" or "property damage":(1) expected or intended from the standpoint of any insured.(2) arising out of assault or battery, or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of an assault or battery.'" (Id. at p. 1260.) "Customer eventually dismissed his intentional tort claims against the insured, and settled his action against them . . . ." (Id. at p. 1258.) The Zelda court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The assault and battery exclusion, "by its plain language, covers injury or damage arising when someone (not necessarily an insured) commits an act of assault or battery, or is in the course of committing an assault or battery." (Zelda, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1261.) The documents available to the insurer "support two versions of the altercation between customer and employee. The complaints and letter portray an unwarranted assault and battery by employee upon customer in which employee threw customer to the ground and kicked him. By contrast, the police report indicates that customer first assaulted employee by throwing a punch, and employee responded in self-defense.Both versions of the altercation trigger the exclusion. Under each version, customer's injuries stemmed from an unwarranted assault." (Id. at p. 1262.)