Opinion ID: 717171
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Westowne's unfair competition claims.

Text: 42 Brown creatively contends City Insurance has a duty to defend it because the activity alleged in Westowne's complaint is like or related to the causes of action enumerated in the personal injury endorsement. The duty allegedly exists because Westowne's claims and those listed in the provision are all part of a wide range of activity known as 'unfair competition'. 43 Brown's argument must be rejected for three reasons. First, as we noted above, Westowne's allegations do not amount to a claim for common law unfair competition. Second, Brown identifies the cause of action by its label, which is improper for determining insurance coverage. Curtis-Universal, 43 F.3d at 1122. Third, even if we concluded that Westowne's allegations amounted to a claim for unfair competition, that umbrella concept is not necessarily similar to tortious interference with contractual rights, the cause of action recognized in the personal injury provision. 4