Kona Coffee Must be From the Big Island of Hawaii
Barry Zalma
Jun 13, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDBUbBWf and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5Wwz6Tc and at https://lnkd.in/gdXBrwfA and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
L&K Coffee claimed its various insurance companies erroneously denied coverage to defend it against a Lanham Act false-advertising lawsuit brought by Hawaiian coffee growers. The district court concluded the applicable insurance policies did not obligate a defense and entered summary judgment in the insurance companies’ favor.
In L&K Coffee LLC, dba Magnum Roastery; Kevin Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation; Liberty Insurance Corporation; Selective Way Insurance Company; Valley Forge Insurance Company; Continental Casualty Company, No. 22-1727, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (June 1, 2023) the Sixth Circuit resolved the coverage dispute.
FACTS
L&K Coffee, LLC, a Michigan-based company, roasts and sells coffee products throughout the United States. Defendants are insurance companies from whom L&K purchased general commercial liability and umbrella insurance policies.
Coffee growers from the Kona region of the Island of Hawai’i sued L&K and other coffee companies for “false designation of origin, false advertising, and unfair competition” in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), in the Western District of Washington. These “Kona Plaintiffs” alleged that the defendants falsely designated the origin of the coffee they branded and distributed as “Kona” coffee “when most of the coffee beans contained in the coffee products were sourced from other regions of the world.”
The Kona Plaintiffs’ operative complaint summarized their contentions as to L&K as follows: “L&K falsely designates the geographic origin of its “Kona” coffee products with the prominent placement of KONA on the front of the packaging.”
The deceptive marketing was alleged to be designed to mislead consumers into believing that L&K’s Magnum Exotics “Kona” products contain coffee from the Kona District, when the coffee products actually do not contain a significant amount of Kona coffee, if any. The plaintiffs also alleged that L&K deliberately misled the consumer into believing that L&K’s Magnum Exotics coffee products contain significant amounts of premium Kona coffee beans in order to justify the high price L&K charges for what is actually ordinary commodity coffee.
L&K asked the insurance companies to defend and indemnify them in that matter under the policies’ “personal and advertising injury” coverage. Personal and advertising injury, in pertinent part, is defined as an “injury . . . arising out of” (1) a publication that “disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services,” or (2) “[i]nfringing upon another’s . . . slogan in your advertisement.” Based on this language and the Kona Plaintiffs’ allegations, the insurance companies denied coverage because, as one insurer put it, “none of the offenses in the definition of ‘personal and advertising injury’ include false advertising, and none of the allegations in the complaint fall within any of the offenses in the definition.”
ANALYSIS
The duty of an insurance company to provide a defense depends upon the allegations in the complaint and extends to allegations which even arguably come within the policy coverage. An insurer’s duty to defend does not depend solely upon the terminology used in a plaintiff’s pleadings. Rather, it is necessary to focus on the basis for the injury and not the nomenclature of the underlying claim in order to determine whether coverage exists.
The term “disparage” means an untrue statement directed towards another’s property. A disparagement claim requires a company to make false, derogatory, or disparaging communications about a competitor’s product.” (emphasis in the opinion)
The Kona Plaintiffs alleged L&K violated the Lanham Act’s prohibition on false designation of one’s own product. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). The Sixth Circuit concluded that this is not “disparagement.”
Upon review of the Kona Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Sixth Circuit Court agreed with the district court that the complaint does not set forth an arguable theory of recovery. In the Kona Plaintiffs’ own words, “only coffee grown on farms located within the Kona District of the Big Island of Hawaii . . . can be truthfully marketed, labeled, and sold as Kona coffee.” L&K violated the false designation of its product and that was not a covered cause of loss.
ZALMA OPINION
It never pays to lie to your customers. When doing so harms someone else you are subject to damages from those your lie harms. By falsely designating its product of “Kona” coffee when L&K claimed its cheap, generic coffee was “Kona” Coffee it was involved in a tort that was not covered by the policies of insurance.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/guWk7gfM
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
