137 F. Supp. 3d 912
W.D. Va.2015Background
- Westfield sued Pinnacle for declaratory relief; Burmers sued Pinnacle in WV circuit court for various claims including WVCCPA and invasion of privacy.
- Pinnacle carried a Westfield CGL policy (Mar 26, 2013–Mar 26, 2014) covering bodily injury, property damage, and personal/advertising injury.
- Policy excludes distribution of material in violation of statutes (TCPA, CAN-SPAM, FCRA, etc.) and excludes intentional acts and acts causing liability not arising from covered risks.
- Pinnacle informed its agent of the Burmers’ suit; Westfield later denied coverage (June 12, 2014) and again (Aug. 27, 2014) for all claims.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the court held no coverage under the policy and granted Westfield’s motion while denying Pinnacle’s for partial summary judgment.
- Conclusion: Westfield’s summary judgment granted; Pinnacle’s partial summary judgment denied; case dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Burners’ claims fall within Coverage A or B. | Westfield—claims aren’t bodily injury, property damage, or personal/advertising injury; no occurrence. | Pinnacle—claims could be covered as invasion of privacy and related injuries; reasonable interpretations and expectations. | No coverage under Coverage A or B. |
| Whether exclusions apply to defeat coverage. | Exclusions apply to TCPA/other statutes and negligent acts. | Exclusions bar coverage for the asserted claims. | Exclusions apply; no coverage. |
| Whether the doctrine of reasonable expectations creates coverage. | Pinnacle relied on Westfield’s representations implying coverage. | No reasonable expectation; representations not objective. | No reasonable expectations to create coverage. |
| Whether Westfield had a duty to defend Pinnacle. | If any claim could be covered, insurer must defend. | No covered claims; duty to defend not triggered. | No duty to defend; no coverage. |
| Whether the bad faith/common law claims survive given no coverage. | Insurer’s denial could still support bad faith claims. | Without coverage, bad faith claims fail. | Bad faith/common law claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowyer v. Hi-Lad, Inc., 216 W.Va. 634 (WV 2004) (duty to defend when claims fall within policy risk; liberal insured-friendly interpretation)
- Tackett v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 213 W.Va. 524, 584 S.E.2d 158 (WV 2003) (whether underlying allegations are reasonably susceptible of coverage under policy)
- Kelly v. Painter, 202 W.Va. 344, 504 S.E.2d 171 (WV 1998) (court adopts plain meaning; ambiguity resolves against drafter)
- Res. Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2005) (privacy coverage distinctions between secrecy and seclusion; clarifies exclusion scope)
- New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. RRK, Inc., 230 W.Va. 52, 736 S.E.2d 52 (WV 2012) (reasonable expectations doctrine applies to ambiguous provisions or inconsistent prior communications)