Opinion ID: 1805230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage

Text: ¶ 26. Regarding personal and advertising injury coverage, [3] the policy states that Farmland will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages including punitive and exemplary damages, because of personal injury or advertising injury to which this insurance applies. The policy specifically states that [n]o other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly provided for [under the policy]. (emphasis added). ¶ 27. The policy does not cover the torts Monsanto has complained of; indeed, as discussed supra, one cannot insure oneself for illegal actions. The Scruggses struggle mightily to suggest that coverage might fall under the provision for personal and advertising injury. This strains the plain words of the contract. ¶ 28. The Scruggses argue that if Farmland wished to exclude patent claims, it could have easily done so. This is true, but the policy expressly provides that coverage only occurs when explicitly provided for. Patent infringement is not discussed anywhere in the policy and will not be inferred. Again, we will refrain from altering or changing a policy where the terms are unambiguous, even if there is a resulting hardship on the insured party. Estes, 825 So.2d at 656. Accordingly, when an insurance contract is plain and unambiguous, it should be construed as written. Id. ¶ 29. If the Scruggses were concerned about securing insurance to protect against patent infringement, they should have sought out an insurer that provided such coverage or attempted to contract with Farmland for such coverage. [4] It cannot be claimed that the policy protects them from liability when the policy specifically excludes situations that are not included in the coverage. ¶ 30. The contract is plain and unambiguous, and we will not distort it to find coverage where none exists. As noted supra, there are three more reasons why coverage must be denied; first, the plain face of Monsanto's complaint does not trigger the policy's coverage and duty to defend; secondly, the torts complained of were intentional; and last, public policy compels us to refuse coverage for intentional and illegal actions.