Allegations fall short of advertising injury.

PositionLexmark International, Inc. v. Transportation Insurance Co. - Illinois

In Lexmark International Inc. v. Transportation Insurance Co., 2001 WL 1636680, 2001 Ill.App. Lexis 1463, an office printer company failed to prove that two insurance companies had a duty to defend under the advertising injury provisions of comprehensive general liability policies.

In the underlying litigation, BDT Products Inc., a design, development and manufacturing company, alleged that Lexmark, an office printer manufacturer, wrongfully appropriated its paper singulation and feeding technology and incorporated it in Lexmark's desktop laser printer. The coverage controversy arose in Illinois state court, where Lexmark claimed its insurers, Transportation Insurance Co. and American Motorists Insurance Co., were obligated to defend it in the BDT litigation under the advertising injury coverage of the CGL policies issued to it. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court held for Lexmark, concluding there was a "potential for coverage," but the Illinois Appellate Court reversed in an opinion by Justice Wolfson, directing the trial court to enter summary judgment for the insurers.

Lexmark relied on three elements of the advertising injury coverage--(1) "misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business," (2) "disparagement of BDT's goods...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT