fbpx

Insurance Company Lack of Liability for Law-Breaking Actions Lawsuit

This case is built on a class action in which plaintiff Gorss Motels is alleging that AVM Enterprises sent it junk faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Connecticut’s General Statutes (Gorss Motels, Inc. v. AVM Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 17-01078, the Underlying Action for this case). In this case, Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) seeks a declaration by the court that the insurance policy it has issued to AVM Enterprises does not obligate it to defend AVM or to pay AVM’s liabilities for having broken the law.

The CIC policies run from June 1 one year to June 1 the next. The complaint claims that they include policies for 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018, and that they each have CGL coverage parts and umbrella coverage parts.

The various coverages of the CIC policies may seem at first glance to include a duty to pay for damages arising out of AVM’s sending of junk faxes. For example, the CGL coverage part of the CIC policies defines “personal and advertising injury” in part as “injury, including consequential bodily injury, arising out of one or more of the following offenses:

“…e. Oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right to privacy[.]”

However, the policies also set forth exclusions, for example, one entitled “Distribution of Material in Violation of Statutes” that talks about damage or personal or advertising injury arising from “any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate” the TCPA and “[a]ny statute, ordinance or regulation, other than the TCPA or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, that prohibits or limits the sending, transmitting, communicating or distribution of material information…”

The complaint also cites other exclusions titled “Expected or Intended Injury,” “Knowing Violation of Rights of Another,” and “Material Published Prior to Coverage Term.”

While CIC has undertaken AVM’s defense in the Underlying Action, the complaint says, it would like the court to provide a declaration that it does not have a duty to defend AVM, nor does it have a duty to indemnify AVM under its insurance policies. The complaint cites details of the coverage provisions as well as the various exclusion sections to make the case that AVM has violated statutes, knowingly violated the rights of others, and otherwise acted in ways that are excluded from CIC’s coverage.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Insurance

Most Recent Case Event

Insurance Company Lack of Liability for Law-Breaking Actions Lawsuit Complaint

November 8, 2017

This case is built on a class action in which plaintiff Gorss Motels is alleging that AVM Enterprises sent it junk faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Connecticut’s General Statutes (Gorss Motels, Inc. v. AVM Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 17-01078, the Underlying Action for this case). In this case, Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) seeks a declaration by the court that the insurance policy it has issued to AVM Enterprises does not obligate it to defend AVM or to pay AVM’s liabilities for having broken the law. 

avm_enterprises_tcpa_complaint.pdf

Case Event History

Insurance Company Lack of Liability for Law-Breaking Actions Lawsuit Complaint

November 8, 2017

This case is built on a class action in which plaintiff Gorss Motels is alleging that AVM Enterprises sent it junk faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Connecticut’s General Statutes (Gorss Motels, Inc. v. AVM Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 17-01078, the Underlying Action for this case). In this case, Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) seeks a declaration by the court that the insurance policy it has issued to AVM Enterprises does not obligate it to defend AVM or to pay AVM’s liabilities for having broken the law. 

avm_enterprises_tcpa_complaint.pdf
Tags: Declarative Relief Only, Disputes about Liability for Insured's Actions, Insurance