Cal Supreme Court Decision Did Not Alter Hewlett-Packard Win

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. ACE Property & Casualty Co., No. C 99-20207 JW, 2003 WL 22126601, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3586 (N.D. Cal. March 4, 2003) (Order filed Nov. 23, 2003).  In the first post-Hameid case to address the meaning of "advertising," the court again denied ACE's Motion for Reconsideration, stating: "Ace's motion for reconsideration is premised on the California Supreme Court's decision in Hameid v. National Fire Ins., 31 Cal.4th 16 (2003) . . . . In Hameid, the California Supreme Court clarified that for purposes of a comprehensive general liability policy, ‘advertising' means ‘widespread promotional activities usually directed to the public at large.' Id. at 24. The Hameid decision, however, does not conclusively negate coverage. The Hameid decision did not address the issue before this Court: whether a package insert in a product that is distributed and sold worldwide is ‘advertising.' Indeed, the Hameid decision expressly declined to address the question of ‘whether widespread promotional activities directed at specific market segments constitute advertising under the CGL policy.' Id. at 24, n. 3. Arguably, HP's package insert is widespread promotional activity directed at a specific market segment." Id. at pp. 4-5.