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.

Search

Refine your search

Content type

Tags

Firm name

Author

264 results found

Article

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP | USA | 25 Jul 2007

Massachusetts Supreme Court holds that policy term “invasion of privacy” within the definition of “advertising injury” under a commercial general liability policy is ambiguous and finds coverage for junk fax transmissions

Although an insured’s transmission of junk faxes was not an “accident” as that term is defined in the commercial general liability policy, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the State’s highest court), interpreting New Jersey law, held that coverage is afforded to the insured for an underlying suit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the fax advertisements constitute “advertising injury” under the policy.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...