In a recent pro-coverage ruling, the Delaware Superior Court rejected an insurer’s argument that the policyholder’s claim fell outside the current policy period based on its alleged relationship to several prior claims.  RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Sempris, LLC, No. N13C-10-096 (Del. Sup. Sept. 3, 2014) (“Sempris”).  The policyholder, Sempris, LLC (“Sempris”), had been named in an underlying putative class action in which it was alleged that Sempris and its telemarketing company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) in making unsolicited telemarketing phone calls – Sarah Toney, et al. v. Quality Resources, Inc. et al., No. 13-cv-42 (N.D. Ill.) (the “Toney Action”).  Sempris tendered the Toney Action to its directors and officers insurer—RSUI Indemnity Company (“RSUI”)—which denied any duty to defend or indemnify and filed a declaratory judgment action.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, RSUI argued that the Toney Action was related to certain prior actions that had been filed against Sempris and therefore was not a claim first made during its policy period.  Rejecting RSUI’s arguments, the court held that theToney Action was not related to the Prior Actions.  In each of the prior actions, the plaintiffs alleged that they contacted a third-party product vendor to purchase various consumer products and were enrolled in Sempris’ membership program as part of the same transaction, which they were later billed for.  The later claims against Sempris were fraud-based, alleging that the plaintiffs had not consented to enrollment in the membership program as part of their purchase.  By contrast, the plaintiff in the Toney Action alleged that she placed an online order with a third-party product vendor and was subsequently contacted by a third-party telemarketer about enrollment, notwithstanding that the plaintiff’s telephone number allegedly was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.  Indeed, it was the alleged initiation of the autodialer contact to the plaintiff’s telephone number that gave rise to the TCPA claims in the Toney Action.  None of the allegations in the prior actions formed the basis of a claim under the TCPA.  Likewise, none of the fraud-based allegations at issue in the prior actions are present in the ToneyAction because the plaintiff there was never enrolled in, or billed for, the Sempris membership program.  According to the court, these factual differences were critical against a backdrop of strong Delaware precedent supporting a broad interpretation of common “relatedness” policy language.