In Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. CV 012-3699 DMG (MANx), 2013 WL 3526039 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2013), 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." While conflating the standard for potential coverage with that to establish potential liability and thereby going to them merits in the underlying action, citing Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 195 Cal. App. 4th 986, 989 (2011), as modified (June 7, 2011). The court's factual analysis clarifies why a defense under the privacy invasion claims was properly articulated by the common law negligence and invasion of privacy claims. This order is presently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.