Western Heritage Insurance Company issued a commercial insurance policy to Peck Investments doing business as Schooners Restaurant.

An endorsement to the policy provided limited coverage for “all sums [that the insured] become[s] legally obligated to pay as ‘damages’ because of ‘bodily injury’ to any person arising out of an Assault and/or Battery.” Coverage under the endorsement was limited to \($100,000\) per “Event” and \($300,000\) in the aggregate. An “Event” was defined as “an act or series of acts based on or arising out of the same assault and/or battery.” Derrick Lark and Antuan Jones were assaulted by Schooners’ employees outside of the restaurant after they went outside to check on a friend who had been forcibly removed from the premises. Lark and Jones filed separate tort lawsuits naming Peck and several individual employees as defendants. Lark and Jones also filed declaratory judgment actions against Western Heritage and Peck, asking the court to declare that their assaults constitute separate “events” as defined in the policy. Western Heritage asked the court to declare that its duty to defend and indemnify the defendants was limited to \($100,000\) under the policy’s assault and battery endorsement. Western Heritage contended that the assaults constituted part of a “series of acts based on or arising out of” the assault of Lark and Jones’ friend. Lark and Jones argued each suffered his own “assault and battery.” Were the assaults two separate “Events” under the terms of the endorsement? Was the term “Event” in the endorsement capable of more than one meaning?