Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute between Advance Watch Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company concerning the latter's duty to defend Advance in a lawsuit filed by A.T. Cross Company. Cross alleged trademark and trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, related to Advance's marketing of writing instruments that resembled Cross's products. The district court ruled in favor of Advance, finding that Travelers had a duty to defend the claims as they fell under 'advertising injury' coverage. However, Travelers appealed this decision, arguing that their policy did not cover trademark infringement as 'advertising injury.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the interpretation of 'advertising injury' under Michigan law. The court concluded that the term did not encompass trademark infringement, thus reversing the district court's decision and granting summary judgment to Travelers. The court also upheld the denial of attorneys' fees to Advance, as the settlement with Cross did not establish Advance's liability. The decision was based on the clear policy language that did not explicitly include trademark infringement within the scope of 'advertising injury' coverage.
Legal Issues Addressed
Duty to Defend under Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court analyzed whether Travelers had a duty to defend Advance in a trademark infringement suit under the policy's coverage for 'advertising injury.'
Reasoning: The district court outlined Michigan law on an insurer's duty to defend, which hinges on the allegations in the underlying complaint.
Exclusionary Clauses in Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Exclusionary clauses were strictly construed against the insurer, but the court found that the absence of specific reference to trademark infringement suggested no coverage.
Reasoning: The absence of specific references to trademark infringement suggests that the insurer did not intend to cover this liability, as evidenced by explicit mentions of other types of infringement like copyright.
Interpretation of 'Advertising Injury' in Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that 'misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business' did not include trademark infringement as alleged by Cross.
Reasoning: The district court granted summary judgment for Advance, determining that the term 'misappropriation of style of doing business' is sufficiently broad to encompass claims of copying trademark-protected designs.
Jurisdiction and Appellate Review in Diversity Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court had jurisdiction to review the district court's ruling under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, focusing on de novo review of the legal interpretation of the insurance policy.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction over the appeal and cross-appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.