Advertising Injury/Wrongful Solicitation of Customers

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/video-explaining-some-advertising-injury-coverage-zalma-esq-cfe and see the full video at https://youtu.be/J_gGcOaYKBc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3500 posts. 

In Maryland Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Intern. Ltd 442 Md. 685, 706, 114 A.3d 676, 688 (2015) Maryland’s highest court concluded that none of the acts of the plaintiffs involved advertising injury and there was no obligation on the Insurers to defend or indemnify Blackstone.

Advertising injury provisions are typically specified risk coverages whose terms are designed to provide coverage for the enumerated claims only and not to provide generalized liability coverage. A highly attenuated connection to advertising is not sufficient to create coverage. To meet the causal connection requirement, the advertising injury claimed must be caused by an offense committed in the course of advertising. The question is whether the advertising did in fact contribute materially to the injury.