Shockingly, New York to date had not definitely addressed whether an insurer, which did not reserve its right to recoup fees expended in defending, settling, or indemnifying an insured, could do so where it established no potential coverage. In General Star Indem. Co. v. Driven Sports, Inc., No 14-CV-3579 (JFB)(ARL), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7966…
Judge Gary Allen Feess of the Central District in Los Angeles agreed with plaintiffs in Am. Inst. of Intradermal Cosmetics, Inc. v. Soc’y of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals, No. CV 12-06887 GAF (JCx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160395 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014), and permitted filing of a Third Amended Complaint in an antitrust lawsuit. The…
Ninth Circuit Affirms Broad Scope Of “In Your ‘Advertisement’” Element Of Offense (f) In Enforcing “First Publication” Exclusion Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2014) was published June 10, 2014. That Order was amended on November 14, 2014, after the Panel solicited Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing…
David Gauntlett of Gauntlett & Associates was recently mentioned in Law360 Q&A for his expertise in coverage law. Leslie Thorne of Haynes & Boone was interviewed for a news and analysis article on insurance-related litigation. Haynes & Boone is a business, real estate, construction and insurance coverage litigation law firm. Ms. Thorne was asked “Outside…
The Northern District of California sided with California Court of Appeals case Charlotte Russe over conflicting appellate cases Total Call and Swift, finding potential coverage without requirement that the disparaging statement specifically refer to the goods, products, or services of the claimant. Recently, the Northern District of California weighed in on the divergent opinions of the…
In 2012 two published decisions from the California Court of Appeals and one unpublished decision from the Ninth Circuit shed new light on the contours of implicit disparagement coverage under California law. The first such Court of Appeals decision, Charlotte Russe, clarified and reasserted the broad scope of implied disparagement coverage, a position the second…
In Michael Taylor Designs, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 761 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011), the district court determined that potential coverage arose in a trade dress infringement lawsuit where customers were steered to allegedly inferior, synthetic furniture products in a purported “bait and switch” scheme evidencing implicit disparagement. In…
In a brief note posted to Agents of America (www.AgentsofAmerica.org), Joseph P. Monteleone, of Tressler, LLP commented on Gauntlett v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., No. 5:11-CV-00455 EJD, 2012 WL 4051218 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2012) (“Gauntlett II”) noting that Judge Davila refrained from an expansive interpretation of Illinois Union’s duty to defend. Review of that…
Three recent decisions, two published from the California Court of Appeals, and one unpublished from the Ninth Circuit, address the boundaries of coverage for implicit disparagement claims under California law emphasizing both the limitations and opportunities for such claims. For intellectual property practitioners, these cases highlight why a number of typically asserted IP…
Miranda v. California Capital Ins. Co., No. A126778, 2011 WL 1168064, *6 (Cal. App. (1st Dist.) March 29, 2011) Cow breeders transferred inferior cows to the claimant misrepresenting to him and the insured that the cows were from the insured’s herd, so as to disrupt their relationship. These statements allegedly misrepresented “that the…
Gauntlett on IP Insurance 
You must be logged in to post a comment.