 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crossmark11/20/2002
. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the respondent, General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, has a duty to defend Nick DeGeorge and Food Marketing Services, Inc., in an action brought against them by Crossmark, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment determining that General Casualty has no duty to defend or indemnify Food Marketing and DeGeorge under the insurance policy issued by General Casualty to Food Marketing. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to General Casualty and affirm.
. The material facts are undisputed. DeGeorge was previously a vice-president of sales and marketing for the meat and deli division of Crossmark's Milwaukee office. DeGeorge resigned his position in May 2000, and commenced employment with Food Marketing, Crossmark's competitor. In June 2000, Crossmark filed a complaint against DeGeorge and Food Marketing. Food Marketing, in turn, tendered the defense of the complaint to General Casualty, which insured Food Marketing during the time periods involved in Crossmark's complaint. General Casualty intervened and moved the trial court for declaratory relief determining that it had no duty to defend Food Marketing or DeGeorge against the claims made by Crossmark, and no duty to indemnify them for any liability. Although it initially denied summary judgment to General Casualty, after completion of discovery the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor.
. This court reviews the trial court's decision granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as those employed by the trial court. Greene v. Gen. Cas. Co., 216 Wis. 2d 152, 157, 576 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1997). Summary judgment may be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wis. Stat. ยง 802.08(2) (1999-2000).
. The interpretation of an insurance contract presents a question of law for this court's independent review. Greene, 216 Wis. 2d at 157. Determining whether an insurance company has a duty to defend also presents a question of law which we review de novo. Grube v. Daun, 173 Wis. 2d 30, 72, 496 N.W.2d 106 (Ct. App. 1992). Whether an insurer has a duty to provide a defense to its insured is determined by the complaint and not by extrinsic evidence. Id. "If there are allegations in the complaint which, if proven, would be covered, the insurer has a duty to defend." Id.
. Crossmark's complaint alleged ten interrelated claims against DeGeorge and Food Marketing. Crossmark set forth five claims against DeGeorge, including breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations, and unfair competition. The claims were based on allegations that DeGeorge violated his confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement with Crossmark, that he made statements to Crossmark customers which were calculated to undermine Crossmark's relationship with them, that he solicited Crossmark customers to transfer their business to Food Marketing, and that he persuaded several Crossmark employees to resign their positions at Crossmark and join him at Food Marketing. Crossmark further alleged that in the course of his departure, DeGeorge removed Crossmark property, including market and account plans, pricing and promotional information, share data, sales trends, scan data, contracts, employee salary information, retail coverage plans, category management templates, long-term market plans, and client correspondence.
. Crossmark incorporated the allegations against DeGeorge in five claims against Food Marketing, including claims for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business rela
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|