Opinion ID: 2513961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The National Insurance Policy

Text: In order to determine whether National owed Hameid a duty to defend, we must examine the CGL insurance policy at issue. As noted, the policy provides defense and indemnity coverage for advertising injuries if the injuries are caused by an offense committed in the course of advertising [the insured's] goods and services. The coverage obligates National to defend an action against the insured if the underlying lawsuit alleges (1) advertising by the insured, (2) an advertising injury offense as defined in the policy, and (3) a causal connection between the advertising injury and the third party claimant's damages. The Umbrella Coverage Endorsement in the same CGL insurance policy provides additional coverage for advertising injury under essentially identical terms. Although the CGL insurance policy here does not define advertising, it does define advertising injury to mean injury arising out of one or more offenses, including slander or libel, violation of the right to privacy, copyright, title or slogan infringement, and, at issue here, [misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business. [2] Thus in order for Hameid to have a reasonable expectation of coverage under the National CGL policy for advertising injury he must show that: (1) he was engaged in advertising during the policy period when the alleged advertising injury occurred; (2) KWP's allegations created a potential for liability under one of the covered offenses (i.e., misappropriation of advertising ideas); and (3) a causal connection existed between the alleged injury and the advertising. ( Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1276, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 ( Bank of the West); Peerless Lighting Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 995, 1009, 98 Cal. Rptr.2d 753 ( Peerless) . )