|
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, et al., No. G.D. 08-6931 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (currently pending; coverage for alleged intellectual property infringement; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
|
|
Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company v. Wave Tec Pools, Inc., Civil Action No. A05CA 498 SS, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, in which the court held that (1) insurer was obligated to defend a claim asserting Lanham Act violations, (2) the policy’s exclusion for intellectual property claims did preclude coverage for product disparagement claims, (3) product disparagement claims were not precluded from coverage under a “metatag” exclusion and (4) “willfulness” and knowledge-based exclusions did not excuse the insurer’s defense obligation.
|
|
Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Pestco, Inc., No. Civ. A. 02-1204, 2004 WL 3403038 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2004), in which the court held that (1) a claim for trade dress infringement involves “misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business” within a commercial general liability policy’s definition of "advertising injury," (2) a claim for trade dress infringement does not fall within an umbrella liability’s exclusion for trademark infringement, and (3) the "first publication" exclusion is, at a minimum, ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage.
|
|
Representation of Mutual Fund Family: Recovered $45 million in defense and indemnity under multiple policies in connection with NYAG and SEC investigations into market timing, late trading and excessive fees and related civil suits.
|
|
International Communication Materials, Inc. v. Employer’s Insurance of Wausau, No. Civ. A. 94-1789, 1996 WL 1044552 (W.D. Pa. May 29, 1996), in which the court held (1) that the so-called “first publication exclusion” does not preclude advertising injury coverage for material that, though first published during the policy period, is similar to advertising material that was first published — as part of a comprehensive "advertising campaign" — prior to the policy's inception; and (2) that “lost profits” awarded for Lanham Act trademark and trade dress violations are “damages” within the meaning of a standard commercial liability policy, the insurability of which is not precluded by public policy.
|
|
Koppers Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. G.D. 08-002698 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (currently pending; coverage for alleged coal tar pitch liabilities; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
|
|
Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, No. H-99-064, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8690 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2000), in which the court granted summary judgment in favor of a policyholder seeking coverage under a standard commercial liability policy for a “wrongful seizure” claim asserted under the Lanham Act.
|
|
Mine Safety Appliance Company v. Century Indemnity Company, No. G.D. 06-13611 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (currently pending; coverage for alleged product defects; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
|
|
Standard Steel, LLC v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 08-CV-00195 FXC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (currently pending; coverage for property damage; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
|
|
United States Steel Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, Consolidated Actions No. 02-2108, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in which the court held that the principal had no obligation to pay additional premiums respecting long-tail liabilities under self-insured workers' compensation bonds that had been terminated.
|