In Street Surfing, LLC v. Great American E&S Insurance Co., No. 12-55351, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21804 (9th Cir. (Cal.) Nov. 14, 2014), the Ninth Circuit examined whether the display of product in a retail setting could satisfy the "in your advertisement" requirement in an insurance policy’s advertising injury coverage. The court found that even when a product is promoted by a third party, such as a retailer, the insured may still benefit from advertising coverage under certain policy definitions.

In The Limited v. Nationwide Insurance Co., Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Case No. 94CVH11-8405, the issue of design patent infringement and its intersection with advertising injury coverage under an insurance policy was at the forefront. The case revolved around the sale of the fruit legging product, where Nationwide Insurance Co. disputed whether potential liability for patent infringement could trigger coverage under the policy’s provisions for misappropriation of an advertising idea.

In Market Lofts Community Association v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, the court addressed a critical issue in D&O insurance defense coverage—whether an insurer is obligated to provide a defense despite a misleading pleading. The court denied National Union Fire Insurance Co.’s Motion to Dismiss and granted the Association’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that it was entitled to defense coverage for a cross-complaint brought by a developer.

The issue of New York no recoupment in insurance law has remained largely unsettled—until now. In General Star Indemnity Co. v. Driven Sports, Inc., No. 14-CV-3579 (JFB)(ARL), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7966 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2015), the court examined whether an insurer could recoup fees expended in defending, settling, or indemnifying an insured when no potential coverage existed, despite failing to reserve its right to seek recoupment. The decision reinforced the trend in several state Supreme Court rulings, including those in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Washington, rejecting an insurer’s attempt to recoup such costs.

In 360Heros, Inc. v. Mainstreet America Assurance Co., the court addressed a significant issue in legal fee insurance coverage—whether an insurer is obligated to cover attorneys’ fees incurred after funding a settlement. The panel reversed what it deemed an “erroneous” ruling and determined that 360Heros, Inc. was entitled to recover legal fees for continued litigation necessary to resolve business issues beyond the initial settlement.

In My Choice Software, Ltd. Liability Co. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. of America, the Ninth Circuit addressed a critical issue in insurance coverage disputes—whether an insurer can rely on an Intellectual Property (IP) exclusion to deny a defense claim.

The case Legion Partners Asset Management, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London highlights a critical issue in insurance coverage disputes—whether an insurer is obligated to provide coverage for claims alleging wrongful acts by company executives. The dispute arose after allegations surfaced that key executives at Legion Partners Asset Management, LLC acted against investors' interests and violated federal laws by leaking material, nonpublic information.