Court Opinion

ID: 9765227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:56:51.038574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:06.730121
License: Public Domain

John E. Jennings, Judge, dissenting. While I agree with Judges Stroud and Meads that the absence of the insurance policy itself from the record does not preclude our reaching the merits in this case, I cannot agree to affirm. The issue posed is whether one-on-one sales solicitations may constitute advertising under the terms of a commercial general liability insurance policy. This was precisely the question for decision in Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 617 A.2d 1163 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993). There, the court held that a reasonable lay person would not construe “advertising activity” in the context of the CGL policies to include the one-on-one sales activity of Monumental’s agents. The court held that “advertising” means advertising, i.e., “widespread distribution or announcements to the public.” Monumental Life Ins. Co., 617 A.2d at 1173. The Supreme Court of Vermont has reached the same conclusion. Select Design, Ltd v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 674 A.2d 798 (Vt. 1996). See also Tschimperle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 529 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992); International Ins. Co. v. Florists’ Mut. Ins. Co., 559 N.E.2d 7 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990); Playboy Enter., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 769 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1985); MGM, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 839 P.2d 537 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992), aff'd 855 P.2d 77 (Kan. 1993); Smartfoods, Inc. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Co., 618 N.E.2d 1365 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993); Fox Chem. Co., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 264 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1978). There are cases to the contrary: New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Foxfire, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 489 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Merchants Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 794 F.Supp. 611 (S.D. Miss. 1992); John Deere Ins. Co. v. Shamrock Indus., Inc., 696 F.Supp. 434 (D. Minn. 1988), aff'd 929 F.2d 413 (8th Cir. 1991). In rejecting the view taken in the three federal cases and adopting what it described as the “majority view,” the Vermont Supreme Court said: Although we strictly construe the policy provisions against the insurer, we must read the policy provisions according to their plain, ordinary meaning. The majority view does so. Our conclusion is not undercut by the fact that there is some disagreement among courts as to the proper meaning of advertising. Select Design, 61A A.2d at 802 (citations omitted). I agree with both the reasoning of and the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of Vermont and therefore respectfully dissent.