Ninth Circuit Affirms Broad Scope Of “In Your ‘Advertisement’” Element Of Offense (f)

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…

Advertisement

Coverage for Implicit Disparagement Is Not Limited to Claims “Of and Concerning” the Claimant

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…

California Supreme Court Review of Insurance Case on Implied Disparagement Presents Opportunities for Coverage in Intellectual Property Litigation

In 2012 two published decisions from the California Court of Appeals and one unpublished decision from the Ninth Circuit shed new light on the contours of implicit disparagement coverage under California law.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…

Settlement Uncovered Where Christmas Lights Promoted in Showroom Displays and Selected Customer Presentations

Santa’s Best Craft, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 941 N.E.2d 291, 304-05 (Ill. App. Ct. (1st Dist., 2d Div.) 2010) The court’s decision requiring “actual coverage” only comports with earlier precedent if potential coverage of the claim asserted was found not to be a “primary focus” at the time of settlement.  But under Zurich’s…