In denying National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA’s Motion to Dismiss, the court in Market Lofts Community Association v. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA, No.: CV15-03093-RGK(MANx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100691 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) granted Plaintiff, Market Lofts Community Association (“the Association”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding it was entitled to defense in the cross-complaint asserted against it by a developer.  

Claimants design patent claims were held invalid for failure to survive the on-sale bar one year statute of limitations., i.e, the public use bar as to the `809 patent.

The court independently analyzed and confirmed that the term “Street Surfer” was an “advertising idea.” 

The district court, refusing to consider extrinsic evidence in direct contravention of settled rules of California policy construction, determined that the declaratory relief claims for invalidity, non-infringement, and unenforceability, did not assert facts sufficient to evidence potential coverage within the policies, "disparagement" or "abuse of process" offenses.

The court determined that Big 5 satisfied the self-insured retention under both the Hartford and Zurich policies in a zip code liability action and met the requirements to show a potential for coverage under the policies under the pertinent coverage for "personal and advertising injury" for "oral or written publication, in any manner of material that violates a person's right of privacy." 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, in a Memorandum decision, Michael Taylor Designs, Inc. v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America, 495 F. App'x 830 (9th Cir. 2012), affirmed Michael Taylor Designs, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 761 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. (S.F. Div.) 2011).

The court determined that no pre-tender fees were recoverable under California law since no notice of suit would have been provided to the insurer in such circumstances. 

The Court of Appeal held that a manufacturer's allegations of price discounts "may" result in a loss that "might" be covered under the "personal injury" coverage provided under a Commercial General Liability policy.

Conceding that the Nova Complaint alleged trademark and trade dress infringement within California's advertising injury offense of "misappropriation of advertising ideas" or "style of doing business" under Kelly's policy

Coverage for explicit disparagement was implicated by the false advertising claims in light of prior authority.

The court found two grounds for evidencing disparagement coverage. 

The court's prior finding was thus unaffected when it concluded implicit disparagement based on allegations that E.piphany (Infor's predecessor) "falsely stated that it was the ‘only' producer of ‘all Java' and ‘fully J2EE' software solutions, which was an ‘important differentiator' between competing products, even though some competitors offered products with these exact features."

Judge Werdegar, speaking for a unanimous court, held that: "the relevant discharged with escape of waste from evaporation ponds on the site" and "intentional release of waste to mitigate damage was not excluded from coverage on basis that it was not accidental" .

In case involving cleanup of hazardous waste site, state may recover beyond limits of any one liability insurance policy period.

The court found a duty to defend where the policyholder asserting claims for tortious interference.

Class action by California purchasers alleging false advertising about Akävar

antitrust/unfair competition; trademark infringement insurance coverage

(Expert) Render opinion on whether failure to tender copyright infringement claim to CGL insurers of client was legal malpractice under California law.

Court awarded full amount of fees incurred on appeal as sanctions for pursuit of frivolous appeal.