This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, affirming a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, has ruled that an insurer did not have to defend its insured against a competitor's lawsuit where the competitor's claims challenged statements the insured made about its own products.

The Case

A competitor of Albion Engineering Company believed that Albion had claimed that its products were made in the United States when they really were made in Taiwan. The competitor sued Albion in federal court in New Jersey for false advertising and product marking in violation of the federal Lanham Act and for tortious unfair competition through false statements and material omissions under New Jersey law.

Albion notified its insurer, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, of its competitor's lawsuit.

Hartford disclaimed coverage and Albion sued. The district court entered judgment for Hartford, and Albion appealed.

The Hartford Policy

The Hartford business liability insurance policy provided that Hartford would:

pay on behalf of [Albion] those sums that [Albion] becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . “personal and advertising injury.”

The policy defined personal and advertising injury to include:

oral, written or electronic publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services.

The Third Circuit's Decision

The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that neither of the competitor's claims in its lawsuit against Albion met the requirements of New Jersey law for trade libel or product disparagement because the lawsuit did not allege that Albion had libeled or disparaged products made by the competitor.

In its decision, the circuit court explained that the competitor's Lanham Act claim alleged that Albion made “false statements of facts, misrepresentations, and material omissions of facts of the geographic origin of [Albion's] merchandise and the commercial activity of Albion in violation of . . . the Lanham Act.” The circuit court added that the competitor made materially similar allegations for its claim of unfair competition.

In the Third Circuit's view, the gravamen of the competitor's suit was that “Albion lied about Albion's products,” not the competitor's products.

Rejecting Albion's contention that its statements about its own products “implicitly” defamed its competitor, thus giving rise to a duty to defend, the circuit court concluded that the lawsuit against Albion did “not meet the requirements for coverage under the Hartford policy.”

The case is Albion Engineering Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 18-1756 (3d Cir. July 10, 2019).

Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Mr. Meyerowitz is the Director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. He may be contacted at [email protected].