National Union successfully sought a declaration that it had
no duty to defend Mead Johnson in the follow-on consumer lawsuits stemming from
the PBM v. Mead Johnson infant formula
§43(a)(1)(B) false advertising litigation, where Mead Johnson was found to
have falsely claimed a unique formulation unavailable in less expensive store
brands. The consumer plaintiffs based
their claims on the same comparative advertising. National Union argued that this wasn’t
covered “personal and advertising injury.”
Under Indiana law, a duty to defend is triggered when the
underlying complaint alleges facts that might fall within the coverage of the
policy (or, when the facts are contested, the insurer must undertake a
reasonable investigation into the underlying facts). The relevant question was whether the
underlying lawsuit alleged “[o]ral or written publication ... that slanders or
libels a person or organization or ... disparages a person's or organization's
goods, products, or services.” Mead
Johnson argued that the underlying complaints alleged that consumers suffered injury
arising out of Mead Johnson’s disparagement of competitors’ lower-priced
formula, e.g., “As part of its deceptive marketing campaign, Mead Johnson has
disparaged competing products, particularly store brands....”
The court found this insufficient; to state a claim for
libel, slander, or disparagement, the underlying plaintiffs would have to
allege that the false statements were made about the plaintiffs. Consumers wouldn’t have Article III standing
to bring claims for disparagement of the competition, and their injuries were
purely economic. Since the statements at
issue weren’t “of and concerning” the underlying plaintiffs, there was no
coverage, and any economic injury they suffered didn’t fall within the scope of
“disparagement.” (I don’t really get
this. The policy by its terms doesn’t
say that the “person” who is disparaged has to be the one who’s suing to
trigger coverage; it just says that the injury has to arise out of
disparagement, and the underlying plaintiffs here alleged that Mead Johnson’s
denigration of competing brands caused them to pay more for Mead Johnson’s
version.)
No duty to defend and no duty to indemnify.
No comments:
Post a Comment