General commercial liability policies often require an insurer to provide a defense for its insured against a claim that the insured's advertisements disparaged another company's products. An open issue is to what extent an insurer owes a duty to defend based on allegations of disparagement by implication.
Disparagement By Implication: Does an Insurer Owe a Duty to Defend?
Two conflicting California appellate court decisions issued this year highlight the difficulty of determining when an insurer owes a duty to defend disparagement by implication claims. This article discusses the two divergent California decisions, as well as fact patterns that courts have generally agreed are (and are not) implied disparagement claims triggering an insurer's duty to defend
By
Chet A. Kronenberg And Colin H. RolfsThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
