Advertising Injury Coverage: Arguing Positions for False Advertising, Product Disparagement and IP Disputes

Description

The past several years have seen a boom in false advertising and IP litigation between business competitors. When policyholders have turned to their carriers for coverage, the result often has been a dispute over insurance coverage for these claims. The law is unsettled across the country for many business tort coverage issues. 

With respect to misleading claims about a competitor’s product, for example, some jurisdictions allow a disparagement claim even when the competitor and its product are not identified. On the other hand, in a recent and important decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that insurers need only defend claims when the statement identifies or clearly implicates the competitor’s product or business. The California Supreme Court’s decision has been much in the news and its reasoning and implications will be discussed in this webinar.

The personal and advertising injury coverage contains broad coverage for IP claims which allege that the insured has “used another’s advertising idea in its advertisement” or has infringed another’s copyright, trade dress, or slogan.  Under such language courts have found coverage for claims of patent infringement, copyright infringement, common law misappropriation, theft of trade secrets, and trademark and trade dress infringement. The proliferation of e-commerce and the Internet has expanded advertising dramatically and magnified the importance of coverage for IP claims.

Listen as our authoritative panel of attorneys discusses the scope of the personal and advertising injury coverage under CGL policies for false advertising, product disparagement, and IP claims, how courts interpret policy exclusions, most recent case law developments, and best practices for policyholders and insurers to argue their respective coverage positions.