 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Everitt v. Transportation Insurance Company3/22/2000
licy. Id. If the petition does not allege facts within the scope of coverage, the insurer is not required to defend the suit. Id. In applying this rule, we give the pleadings a liberal interpretation. Id.
Under PMA's policy, TIC was bound to pay those sums for which the insured became liable because of an "advertising injury ." However, the policy only applies to an advertising injury "caused by an offense committed in the course of advertising your goods, products or services." "Your" refers to the named insured-PMA-and "advertising injury" is defined by the policy as follows:
"Advertising injury " means injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses:
a. Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services;
b. Oral or written publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy;
c. Misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business; or
d. Infringement of copyright, title or slogan.
As defined in the policy, a covered advertising injury is not implicated in Lusk and Williams' suit.
Lusk and Williams' causes of action follow two distinct lines of reasoning. First, they argue PMA, Everitt, and Murphy committed fraud and breached the contract they had formed by failing to transfer the rights to the manual and seminars to PCI. Alternatively, Lusk and Williams argue PCI obtained the full rights to the manual and seminars, and Everitt, Murphy, and PMA converted, misappropriated, and plagiarized the manual and seminars by selling them to Superior Consultant Company. However, even if these theories allege an "advertising injury ," they do not allege a covered "advertising injury" as defined by the policy-an "` dvertising injury' caused by an offense committed in the course of advertising [PMA's] goods, products or services." See National Union, 939 S.W.2d at 141; Sentry Ins. v. R.J. Weber Co., 2 F.3d 554, 556-57 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we hold the trial court did not err in granting TIC's motion for summary judgment and denying appellants', and we affirm the trial court's judgment without reaching the issue of attorney's fees.
Do not publish
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|