Interstate Bakeries Corp. v. OneBeacon Insurance Company
686 F.3d 539
8th Cir.2012Background
- IBC seeks a declaratory judgment that OneBeacon has a duty to defend in Flowers' underlying suit.
- Flowers sues IBC for trademark-related claims concerning Flowers' Nature’s Own mark.
- IBC's OneBeacon policy covers advertising-injury claims, including infringement of title or slogan, with explicit carve-outs.
- Policy excludes infringement or dilution of trademark absent the title/slogan exception; OneBeacon refused to defend.
- District court denied IBC's summary judgment; judgment entered for OneBeacon.
- Missouri law governs policy interpretation and duty to defend, focusing on the allegations and potential coverage at the filing time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Nature’s Own potentially a title under the policy? | IBC: yes, Nature’s Own is a title of Flowers' wrappers. | OneBeacon: no clear title use; record lacks evidence. | No; allegations insufficient to show Nature’s Own as a title. |
| Is Nature’s Own potentially a slogan under the policy? | IBC: Nature’s Own could be a slogan. | OneBeacon: no evidence Flowers uses it as a slogan. | No; allegations and record do not show slogan use potentially triggering coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. 1999) (duty to defend hinges on potential coverage from pleaded facts)
- Stark Liquidation Co. v. Florists’ Mut. Ins. Co., 243 S.W.3d 385 (Mo.Ct.App. 2007) (insurer must show no possibility of coverage to avoid defense)
- Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. Griffey, 306 S.W.3d 591 (Mo.Ct.App. 2010) (court must not read into a complaint factual assumptions)
- Superior Equipment Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 986 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.Ct.App. 1998) (broad reading of complaints bounded by policy coverage limits)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zen Design Grp., Ltd., 329 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2003) (determines slogan potential by actual use in advertisements)
- Trainwreck W. Inc. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 235 S.W.3d 33 (Mo.Ct.App. 2007) (duty to defend determined at time of filing based on known facts)
- Secura Ins. v. Horizon Plumbing, Inc., 670 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2012) (interpretation of policy language in context of the claim)