### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 26, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1097 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 22 90 6- CV-UUB VECTOR PRODUCTS, INC., d.b .a. Vect orMan uf

actur in g, Lt d., Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, De fendant-Counter-Claim aint-Appellee, SCHUMAC HER ELECTRIC CORP., D ef en dant- Co unt er -C la im an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry26, 200 5)Honora ble J ohn R. Gibson, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. 2 Be fo re BI RC H , KRA V IT CH and G IB SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M: This diversity

action presents the questio n whether the Appellee, H artford Fi re I ns. Co . ( “ H ar

tf or d” ), w as r equir ed

to de fe nd i ts i nsur ed , V ec tor P ro duc ts, Inc. (“ Ve ctor”), in an action broug ht against Vector f or false a dvertising under Sect io n 4 3( a) o f th e Lan ha m Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 11 25 (a), an d o th er s im il ar l aws . Hart fo rdrefu se d t o u nd ert ak e th e d efen se an d Vec to r br ou gh t t he in st an t ac ti on . O n c ro ss- m oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d inf av or of H ar tf or d. W e m ust de te rm ine w he the r ins ur an ce pol ic y e xc lus ion s f

or kno w le dge of fa lsi ty or int en t t o in

j ur e ap ply

to re lie ve H ar

tf or d of it s du ty to de fe nd. T he ap pli catio n ve l no n of

the se e xc lus ion s pr es en ts an is sue of f ir st i m pr es sio n in Fl or ida law . B ec au se m any

ins ur an ce pol ic ie s c ont ai n si m ilar co ve ra ge s and ex cl usi ons, w e ce rt if

y the c ontro lli ng que sti on o f Fl or ida lawto the F lor ida Su pr em e Co urt. I. FACTS V ec tor is a re lativ e ne w co m er

to the bus ine ss o f m anuf ac tur ing and s el lin g3

ba tte ry c harg er s. T he ind

ustry le ad er , S chum ac he r E le ctri c Co rp or at ion (“ Schum acher” ), brought an action against Vector in federal c ourt in the Northern D istri ct of I lli noi s ( the “ Sc hum ac he r ac tio n” ). T he c om pla int a lle ge d th at

V ec tor engaged in false advertising in violatio n of § 43(a) of the L anham Ac t as we ll as state unf ai r co m pe tit ionand d ec ep tiv e tr ad e pr ac tic es law . T he c om pla int sou ght pr el im inary

and p er m am en t i nj unc tiv e re lie f, c om pe nsator y dam ag es , and tre ble dam ag es und er

§ 35 (a ) of

the L anham

A ct , 15 U . S. C. § 11 17( a) . A n a lle ga tio n inc or por at ed int o e ac h c ount

of the c om pla int a lle ge d th at

V ec tor ’ s f

al se state m en ts w er e “ m ad e . . . w ill fu lly and i nte nti ona lly

and w ithf

ull kno w le dge of th e fal si ty of su chst at em en ts .” V ec tor a ske d H ar

tf or d to und er

take the de fe nse of

the und er ly ing a ct ion based on its two insurance policies with H artford ( the “ Policies”). T he Policies pr ovi de d th at

H ar tf or d w oul d have aduty

to de fe nd V ec tor

in law sui ts whe re the plaintiff soug ht to recover for “personal and advertisin g injury .” T he Policies set fo rth ex cl us io ns pro vi di ng th atHart fo rdwou ldha ve no du ty to d efen d, i nt er al ia , suits wher e V ector knewthat the advertising in form ation was fa lse and suits wher e V e c t o r i n t e n d e dt o c au s e th e i n

ju ry. H ar tf or d r ef use d to und er

take the de fe nse . I t c la im ed that the a lle ga tio ns o f w ill fu lne ss and know le dge of f al sity inc or por at ed int o e ac h c ount

tr igg er ed the4

re le vant e xc lus ion s and r el ie ve d it of it s du ty to de fe nd. I n r es pons e, V ec tor br ough t the pr es en t a ct ionin Fl or ida state c ourt, w hic h H ar

tf or d r em ove d to fe de ra l c ourt. V ec tor

se ek s dam ag es f

or br ea chof

c ontra ct f or it s e xpe nse s in de fe ndi ng the S chum ac he r ac tio n to da te , a s w el l a s ade cl ar at or y j udgm en t re qui ri ng H ar

tf or d to und er

take the r em ai nin g de fe nse of the S chum ac he r ac tio n. The par ties filed cross-m otion s for sum m ary j udgm ent. T he district court de nie d V ec tor ’ s m oti on and g rante d H ar tf or d’ s, f ind ing that f

or pur pose s of the duty to de fe nd unde r Fl or ida

law , the L anham

A ct c la im r equir es w ill fu lne ss and know le dge of

f al sity . Appl y ing aF lor ida de ci sio n, S M B ri ck el l L td. P ar tne rs hip v. S t. P au l F ir e an d M ar ine I ns. Co . , 786 S o. 2d 1 204 (F la . 3r d D ist . Ct . App. 2001 ), the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the c as e. V ec tor

f ile d ati m el y

appe al to thi s Co urt. II. AN AL YS IS W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o. L aF ar ge Co rp . v. T rave le rs I nde m . Co . , 188 F . 3d 1 511, 151 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . “ T he int er pr et at ionof

an in sur an ce c ontra ct

is al so a m atte r of lawsub j ec t t o de nov o re vie w . ” I d. A . Co ve ra ge of

S chum ac he r Co m

pla int A s apr el im inary

m atte r, w e not e that the part ie s di sput e w he the r the f ac ts5

an d c au se s of

a ct ionple ad ed

in the S chum ac he r co m

pla int f al l w ith in the c ove ra ge pr ovi de d by

the P oli ci es , le av ing a sid e the appl ic at ionof the e xc lus ion s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r ea chthi s is sue , but r athe r fo und that the kno w le dge of f al sity ex cl us io n app li ed . Ve ctor argues that Sc hum acher’ s claim under the Lanham

Ac t falls under the Policies’ definition o f “personal and advertisin g injury ,” which includes dam ag es “ ar isi ng o ut o f . . [ the ] pub lic at ionof m at er ia l tha t . . . dis para ge s a pe rs on’ s or

or ganiz at ion ’ s go ods, pr oduc ts o r se rv ic es . ” T he und er ly ing c om pla int alleges “ m aterial f

alse repr esentations o f fa ct in a com m ercia l advertisem ent which have deceived or ar e likely to deceive a substantial segm ent of the . . . purchasers of the Ac cused Product.” The underly ing com plaint also alleges sp ecific exam ples of c om pari sons w hic h su gge st tha t V ec tor ’ s pr oduc t i s su pe ri or to the “ le ad ing br an d. ” V ec tor

thu s arg ue s th at

the P oli ci es c ove r L anham A ct dis para ge m en t cl ai m s inge ne ra l. I n r es pons e, H ar tf or d a sse rt s th at

the P oli ci es do n ot g ive r ise to any duty to de fe nd b ec au se non e of V ec tor ’ s a dve rt isi ng m at er ia ls m en tio n Schum acher by

nam e. W e fi nd H ar

tf or d’ s arg um en t onthi s is sue unc onvi nc ing . T he c as es on w hic h H ar

tf or d r el ie s e ith er

pe rt ai n to sit

ua tio ns whe re the ins ur ed m ad e no com parison to anyother product, but m erely touted its own product, Fr og, Sw itch6

& Mfg. Co. v. Tr avelers I ndem . C o., 193 F.3d 742, 748 (3rd Cir. 1999); Zuric h In s. Co . v. S unc lip se , 85 F . S upp. 2d 8 42, 856 (N . D . I ll. 200 0) , or pe rt ai n to unde rl y ing c la im s no t br ough t un de r § 43 of the L anham

A ct , U . S. T es t, I nc . v. ND E E nviro. Corp., 196 F.3d 1376 , 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999 ) (patent infringem ent); H er ita ge Mu t. I ns. Co . v. A dvanc es P oly m er T ec hnol ogy , I nc . , 97 F . S upp. 2d 9 13, 932 (S . D . I nd. 200 0) ( co m m on- lawdis para ge m en t ba se d so le ly on u se of w or ds

“pa te nt p en din g” ); W ink le voss Co nsul tants , I nc . v. F ed er al I ns. Co . , 991 F . S upp. 1024 (N .D . I ll. 1998) (trade sec ret m isappropriatio n). Fl or ida lawis cl ear that whe re an in sur an ce pol ic y c re at es an am

big uity , it shou ld b e re sol ve d inf

av or of the ins ur ed . S tate F ar

m F ir e & C as . Co . v. Si lve rb er g, N o. 03- 1256 5, sli p op . 825 , 829 ( 11th C ir . D ec . 17, 200 4) ; H ym anv. N at ionw ide Mu t. I ns. Co . , 304 F . 3d 1 179, 188 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . B ec au se the P o l i c i e s ar e a mb i g u o u s a s t o w h e th e r th e i n s u r e dmu s tme n t i o nap l a i n t i f f ’s n a me in an a dve rt ise m en t i n or de r to g ive r ise to a duty to de fe nd a

f al se a dve rt isi ng cl ai m , w e re sol ve the a m

big uity in favor of the ins ur ed

and h old that the c la im s in the S chum ac he r co m

pla int do g ive r ise to the duty

to de fe nd, sub

j ec t t o th e ap pli catio n of

the e xc lus ion s. B. Appl ic at ionof

E xc lus ion s H ar tf or d r ef use d to de fe nd V ec tor

in the S chum ac he r ac tio n ba se d ontheSe c tio n 4 3( a )( 1) (B ) o f t he L anh am A c t pr ov ide s th at: 1 Any person who, on or

in connec tion with any

g oods or servic es, or a

ny container for g oods, uses in commerc e any word, ter m, name, sy

mbol, or device , or any combination there of, or a ny false de signation of orig in, false or misleading de sc ri pti on

of fa c t, o r f a lse or mis le a din gre pr e se nta

tio n o f f a c t, whic h . . . in c omm e rc ia l a dv e rt isi ngor pr omo tio n, mis re pr e se nts the natur e , c ha ra c te ri sti c s, qualities, or g eographic orig in of his or her or another person' s g oods, service s, or commerc ial activities, shall be liable in a c ivil action by any person who be lieves that he or sh e is o r i s li ke ly

to b e dama g e d b y

su c h a c t. 7 ex cl us io ns to th e dut y

to de fen d fo r in te ntto in jure an d k no wled ge of f

al si ty. Beca use an allegation of willfulness and kn owledge of fa lsity wa s incorporated int o e ac h c ount

of the S chum ac he r co m

pla int , H ar

tf or d a sse rt s th at

the e xc lus ion s ar e tr igg er ed

f or a ll co unt s. V ec tor c ont en ds tha t e ve n th oughthe S chum ac he r co m pla int c ont ai ns al le gatio ns o f w ill fu lne ss and know le dge of f al sity , it is en tit le d to ade fe nse f

ro m H ar tf or d be ca use S chum ac he r co uld

r ec ove r on at l ea st o ne c la im w ith out pr ovi ng suc h in te nt o r know le dge . I t i s w el l- se ttl ed that no pr oof

of int en t or w ill fu lne ss i s required to establish a viol ation of Lanham Ac t § 43(a) for f

alse advertising. See , 1 e. g., Hy m an v. N ationwide Mut. Fir e Ins. Co., 304 F.3d 1179 , 1196 n.13 (11th Cir. 2002 ); Johnso n & Johns on v. Carter-W allace, Inc. , 631 F. 2d 18 6 (2nd Cir. 1980); Park way Bak in g C o. v . Frei ho fer B ak in g C o., 2 55 F.2d64 1 (3 rdCir . 19 56 ). Rathe r, S ec tio n 43 (a ) pr ovi de s astr ic t l ia bil ity tor t c au se of a ct ion . S ee S pot le ss Ent ers ., Inc . v. Car li sl e Pl as ti cs PTY, Inc., 5 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 2 74 , 17 8 (E.D.N.Y.8

1999 ). I f V ec tor

is co rr ec t, it

is en tit le d to ade fe nse on the e nti re sui t, not j ust the Lan ha m Act cl ai m , so lo ng as t he cla im en ti tl in g i t t o ade fen se is no t d is m is se d. Baro n O il Co . v. N at ionw ide Mu t. F ir e In s. Co . , 470 S o. 2d 8 10, 815 ( Fl a. 1st D ist . Ct. App. 1985 ). H ar tf or d a sse rt s th at

an “ ins ur an ce c om

pany ’ s du ty

to de fe nd an in sur ed

is de te rm in edso le ly from

th e al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntag ai ns t an in su red ,” Am erisure I ns. Co. v. G old Coast Marine Distrib. , I nc., 771 So. 2d 57, 580 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2000 ), rather than from considering th e substance of the causes of a ct ionple ad ed . B ec au se an a lle ga tio n of w ill fu lne ss o r know le dge of f al sity is included in each c ount , H artford argues than und er F lorida law the e xclusio ns are tr igg er ed f or a ll co unt s, and tha t i t the re fo re ha s no duty to de fe nd. A lth oughthe re is no F lor ida c as e on a ll fo ur s, abr ie f sur ve y of the r el ev an t Florida lawis instructiv e. T he Florida Suprem e Court addressed sim ilar policy exclusion s in National Union Fire I ns. Co. v. L enox Liquors, 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1977 ). In L enox Liquors, the insurer re fused to defend its ins ured, a liquo r store, af te r the sto re ’ s pr es ide nt s hot and i nj ur ed

the und er ly ing pla int if

f dur ing w ha t the sto re pr es ide nt e rr one ousl y be lie ve d to be ahol d- up. I d. a t 53 3. T he und er ly ing com plaint on ly

alleged claim s soun ding in intenti onal tort; ho we ver, the parties later r eached a settlem ent in which they stipul ated that it appeared f rom discoveryThe Schumac her c omplaint contains a re quest for tre ble damag es under § 35(a) of the 2 L anh am A c t, 1 5 U .S. C. § 11 17 (a ). Th is C ourt ha s h e ld t

hat to be e lig ibl e fo r L anh am A c t tr e ble damag es, the plaintiff must prove that the def endant’ s conduct wa s intentional. See Chanel, Inc. v. Ita lia n A c tiv e we ar o f F lor ida , Inc ., 93 1 F .2 d 1 47 2 ( 11 th C ir . 1 99 1) (d e c ide d in L anh am A c t § 32 (a ) t ra de mark inf ri ng e me nt c onte xt, but a

pp lyingthe same tr e bledama g e s p ro vis ion ). Thus , Sc huma c he r w a s r e qu ir e d to ple a d inte nt o r k no wl e dg e of

fa lsi ty in o rd e r t o s e e k th e tr e ble d am a g e s r e m e dy. 9 that the case w ouldhave been tried on a negligence theory rather than an as an int en tio na l t ort c as e. I d. a t 53 4. T he F lor ida S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t a duty to defend only

arises “ wher e the co m

pla int al le ge s astate of

f ac ts w ith in the co ve ra ge of

the ins ur an ce pol ic y . ” I d. a t 53 5 ( em pha sis a dde d) . L en ox L iqu or s, how ev er , appe ar s in ap posi te to the c as e at bar. T he c au se of

a ct ionstate d inthe L en ox L iqu or s c om

pla int r equir ed an a lle ga tio n of

int en t; the int en t a lle ga tio n in the c as e sub j udi ce w as sup er fl uous on the iss ue of li ab ili ty ( tho ugh not

f or tr eb le dam ages). 2 A t l ea st o ne F lor ida

D istri ct Co urt of Appe al ha s c onsi de re d wha t ty pe s of actions trigger the intent to injure and knowledge of falsity exclusions . In SM Br ic ke ll L td. P ar

tne rs hip v. S t. P au l F ir e an d M ar ine I ns. Co . , 786 S o. 2d 1 204 (F la . 3r d D ist . Ct . App. 200 1) , the c ourt he ld tha t c la im s f or br ea chof

c ontra ct , intentio nal infliction o f em otion al distress, and intention al defam ation triggered ex cl usi ons an al ogou s to tho se in the pr es en t c as e. I d. a t 12 06. T ha t c ourt, how ev er , f

ound that a c la im f or ne gli ge nt d ef

am at iondid

giv e ri se to a duty

toThe district cour t in the present c ase pur

ported to re ly

on SM Bricke ll. The district 3 court, howe ver, did not consider the possibilit y

that the L anham Ac t claim in the Schumache r complaint might be inter

prete d not to require intent, a nd thus did not reach the cer tified question. 10 de fe nd b ec au se it

did not r equir e pr oof

of int en t. I d. 3 At lea st one District Court of Appeal decision sp eaks to the issue m ore ge ne ra lly . I n th e A m er isure c as e, the c ourt he ld tha t i f the a lle ga tio ns o f the co m pla int sta te fac ts br ing ing the inj ur y w ith in the c ove ra ge of

the pol ic y , the ins ur er m ust de fe nd r eg ar dle ss o f the m er its of the law sui t. A m er isure , 771 S o. 2d at 580 -8 1 ( em

pha sis sup pli ed ); se e al so S te inb er g, sli p op . a t 82 9 ( ci tin g Am erisure). Thi s C ou rt h as co ns id eredsi m il ar i ss ue s o f Fl or id a la w on at l eas t t wo oc ca sio ns. S ee L im e T re e V ill ag e Co m m . Cl ub A sso c. v. S tate F ar m G en . I ns. Co . , 980 F . 2d 1 402, 140 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) ( hol din g th at ins ur er ha d du ty to de fe nd its ins ur ed

de spi te ana log ous pol ic y e xc lus ion s be ca

use the “ fa ct

ua l a lle ga tio ns [ in the c om pla int ] se t f

orth g ro unds oth er

than in te nti ona l a ct s” upo n whic h th e ins ur ed c oul d be li ab le ); A BC D istri but ing , I nc . v. L um be rm en s M ut. I ns. Co . , 646 F. 2d 2 07, 209 ( 5thCi r. U nit B 1981 ) (h old ing that i nsur er did not have duty

to defend based on sim ilar exclusions b ecause “ [even] if [the underly ing pl aintiff] could have go ne to trial on a theory of unintenti onal [] violatio n . . . the insurance co m pany ha d ar igh t t o r el y

on the a ve rm en ts o f the c om pla int that [ the ins ur ed ’ s]In Bonne r v. City of Pritchar d, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this Court 4 decla red that all Fifth Circuit dec isions handed down on or be fore September 30, 1981 a re binding pr ece dent in the Eleve nth Circuit. 11 ac tio ns h ad

be enint en tio na l. ”) N one of the above c as es , how ev er , a ddr es se d th e 4 fa ct pa tte rnhe re w he re ac au se of a ct ionw as ple ad ed

so tha t po lic y

e xc lus ion s f

or intent to injure and knowledge of falsity appear to apply , e ven thou gh the law go ve rn in g t ha t ca us e o f act io n m ak es ita st ric t l iabi li ty offen se . Inar ec en t de ci sio n, thi s C ourt a cknow le dge d th e dif fi cu lti es pos ed

by the re ce nt e xpl osi on o f adve rt isi ng i nj ur y li tig at ionin fe de ra l c ourts b ec au se m ost suc h c as es are c ontro lle d by state law . S tate F ar

m F ir e & C as . Co . v. S te inb er g, slip op . at 829-83 0. Rather than attem pting to extend Florida law in the fa ctual s i tu a t i o np r e s e n t e dh e r e o u r s e l v e s , w e c e rt i f y t h e i s s u e t o th e F l o r i d aS up r e me Co urt f or ade fi nitve state m en t.

III. QUESTION CERTIFIED W e re spe ct fu lly

c er tif y to the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt the f

oll ow ing que sti on: Whether the L anham

Ac t § 43(a) claim , a s pleaded in the Schum acher co m pla int , tr igg er s e ith er

the int en t t o in

j ur e ex cl usi on o r the kno w le dge of f al sity12

ex cl usi on p ro vid ed

f or in the P oli ci es . O ur phr as ing of

the c er tif ie d qu es tio ns i s m er el y

sug ge sti ve and d oe s no t i n an y way res tri ctth e sc op e o f th e in qu iry by th e Supr em e Co ur t o f Fl or id a. As we pr ev iou sly

not ed : [T ] he part ic ular phr as ing use d inthe c er tif ie d qu es tio n is not

to restrict the S uprem e Court’ s consid eration of the problem s invo lved an d th e iss ue s a s th e Su

pr em e Co urt pe rc ei ve s th em to be in its an al y sis of

the r ec or d c er

tif ie d inthi s c as e. T his latit ude e xte nds to the Suprem e Court’ s restatem ent of the issue or issues andthe m anner in whic h th e an sw er s are giv en , w he the r as ac om pr eh en siv e w hol e or in s ubor din at e or

e ve n c ont ing en t pa

rt s. Sw ir e Pa ci fi c H old ing s v. Z ur ic h I ns. Co . , 284 F . 3d 1 228, 123 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) (quotin g Martinez v. Rodriguez, 394 F. 2d 15 6, 159 n.6 (5th Cir. 1968 )). The e ntire rec ord in this case and the briefs of the parties ar e transm itted he re w ith . QUESTION CERTIFIED.