Opinion ID: 1952563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Appellant Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. (hereinafter Delta Pride), was sued in three separate class actions for price fixing. Delta Pride then sued for a declaratory judgment that its primary comprehensive general liability insurer, its umbrella carriers, and its excess carriers had a duty to defend and/or indemnify Delta Pride with regard to the underlying price-fixing suits. The appellees/insurance companies sued for summary judgment that they had no duty to defend and/or indemnify Delta Pride. The chancellor granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees and dismissed Delta Pride's suit for declaratory judgment. The facts are not in dispute. The main issue in this case is a matter of contract interpretation: whether the price-fixing suits fall under the comprehensive general liability policy's coverage for advertising injury, given that the policy defines advertising injury as injury arising out of an offense committed during the policy period occurring in the course of the named insured's advertising activities, if such injury arises out of ... unfair competition? This Court holds that the chancellor correctly found that no coverage existed because Delta Pride's price-fixing activities were separate from its advertising activities and did not constitute unfair competition within the meaning of the advertising injury clause of the policy at issue. In addition, the judgment of the trial court was in accord with other jurisdictions that have considered similar contracts in similar cases. Moreover, as a matter of public policy, this contract can not be interpreted to allow Delta Pride insurance coverage for its intentional, illegal activities. For these reasons, the judgment of the chancellor denying coverage to Delta Pride is affirmed.