842 F. Supp. 2d 1351
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- This is a declaratory judgment action by James River to determine duty to defend/indemnify Bodywell against SAN's complaint in California.
- SAN asserted trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, and unfair competition.
- SAN's marks include the word 'TIGHT' and Bodywell allegedly used a confusingly similar mark in TIGHT CURVES.
- Bodywell's claim to James River was rejected due to policy exclusions; Bodywell settled the underlying suit.
- Court applies Florida law to interpret duty to defend; underlying complaint analyzed for coverage.
- Court grants James River summary judgment, holding no duty to defend or indemnify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to defend determined by underlying complaint's allegations | Bodywell: broader claims may trigger coverage | James River: complaints lack covered claims | Duty to defend denied; no covered allegations |
| Whether slogan infringement is alleged in underlying complaint | Bodywell: wording suggests slogan claim | James River: no slogan infringement pleaded | No slogan infringement alleged in the complaint |
| Whether trade dress infringement is alleged in underlying complaint | Bodywell: prayer for relief implies trade dress | James River: prayer for relief does not create trade dress claim | No trade dress infringement alleged in the complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc., 908 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2005) (duty to defend based on allegations and contract language)
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S. U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2007) (read policy as a whole; duty to defend depends on allegations within policy)
- State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Steinberg, 393 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2004) (conclusory buzz words insufficient to trigger coverage)
- Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 657 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2011) (do not stretch allegations beyond reason to impose duty)
- Matteson v. Wagoner, 147 Cal. 739 (Cal. 1905) (prayer for relief does not alter the gravamen of the cause of action)
- Slovenský v. Friedman, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 60 (Cal.App. 2006) (gravamen analysis determines essential rights violated)