We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 60

Professional services exclusion does not preclude coverage for deceptive advertising claim

  • Cozen O'Connor
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 6 2014

Recently, in Rob Levine & Associates Ltd. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., No. 13-560-M, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15807 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2014), the

You're getting sued for what? An E&O odyssey (Pt 7)

  • Heenan Blaikie LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • February 28 2012

This post is part of an occasional series highlighting the type of risks which film and TV producers face and which are supposed to be covered by E&O insurance, and which aims to demonstrate that what might seem to a producer to be paranoia on the part of their lawyer is, in fact, well-founded

Libel suit for pre-policy newspaper articles not a “known loss”

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 22 2009

Applying Massachusetts law, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that the "known loss" doctrine did not bar coverage for a libel lawsuit arising in part out of articles published before the insured newspaper applied for the policy because the loss was not substantially certain when the policy was obtained

Eighth Circuit holds that insurer need not defend trademark infringment action

  • Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2012

The US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an insurer had no duty to defend under an advertising liability policy that covered title or slogan infringement, but not trademark infringement, because the allegations and evidence showed only that the underlying plaintiff marketed its products using the marknot that it used the mark as a title or slogan

Illinois court holds statutory damages in TCPA claims ‘uninsurable’

  • Sedgwick LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 22 2012

In Standard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lay, N.E.2d -, 2012 WL 1377599 (Ill. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2012), the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, held that the $500 in liquidated damages available under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, is a penalty and punitive, and therefore not insurable under Illinois law

Is fantasy sports insurance legal?

  • Klein Moynihan Turco LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 30 2013

People have been playing in online fantasy sports leagues for a long time. When the federal government created a specific carve-out for fantasy

Insurer and television producer battle over coverage for infringing show

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 13 2010

FremantleMedia, the producer of the reality show American Inventor, has asked the Central District of California to dismiss a counterclaim accusing it of fraud and negligent misrepresentation during mediation

Wisconsin Supreme Court finds judgment for copyright and trademark infringement claim falls within coverage for “advertising injury”

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 14 2008

In Acuity v. Bagadia, Nos. 2006AP1153 & 2006AP1974, 2008 Wisc. LEXIS 314 (Wisc. June 18, 2008), the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision finding an insurer liable for a judgment entered against the insured for copyright and trademark infringement under the commercial general liability policy’s coverage for “advertising injury.”

New cyber-policies in the marketplace

  • Lowenstein Sandler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2008

Most companies have either limited or no coverage for advertising-related claims, intellectual property infringement and invasion of privacy claims

New Jersey Appellate Court holds that mere ancillary advertising of a policyholder’s business is not enough to implicate advertising injury exclusion under contracts for business owners and commercial umbrella liability insurance

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2011

On August 1, 2011, a New Jersey appellate court, in Penn Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Group C. Commc’ns, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. Lexis 2077 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. August 1, 2011), reversed summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that a policyholder’s advertising of its business and services was not enough to implicate an exclusion that precluded coverage for those “whose business is,” among other things, advertising