Speculation About Extraneous Facts Does Not Trigger Duty to Defend
Barry Zalma
Nov 22, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gR4fFWxd and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDTJR88w and at https://lnkd.in/gZT6Tsyk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.
AutoDistributors, Inc. and Steven Schneider (collectively “AutoDistributors”) appealed the district court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Scottsdale Insurance Company, Nationwide E&S Specialty, Scottsdale Indemnity Company, and National Casualty Company (collectively “Defendants”). In Autodistributors, Inc. et al v. Nationwide E&S Specialty; et al., No. 22-16445, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (November 17, 2023) the Ninth Circuit interpreted the insurance policy.
FACTS
This case arose from an underlying dispute between Sixt Franchise USA, LLC, Sixt Rent a Car, LLC (collectively “Sixt”), and AutoDistributors. Sixt Franchise and AutoDistributors entered into a Franchise Agreement that allowed AutoDistributors to operate a Sixt rental car franchise and use Sixt’s trademarks in connection with that franchise. Sixt sued AutoDistributors claiming it violated the Franchise Agreement by operating a used-car-sales business at the franchise location and using Sixt’s trademarks in connection with that business.
AutoDistributors tendered the suit to its insurer Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), and Scottsdale refused to defend or indemnify. AutoDistributors sued the Defendants for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court ruled for Defendants, holding that Scottsdale had no duty to defend AutoDistributors.
DUTY TO DEFEND
An insurer must defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy. To determine whether there is a duty to defend, the insurer compares the terms of the policy with the allegations of the complaint and any other facts that are reasonably inferable or otherwise known.
If the allegations suggest a possibility of coverage, the duty to defend is triggered-even if the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint fall outside policy coverage.
AutoDistributors’ insurance policy covers “personal and advertising injury,” defined to mean injury “arising out of” a specified list of offenses. The policy excludes “‘personal and advertising injury’ arising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights” (the “IP Exclusion”).
Some Of Sixt’s Allegations Clearly Fell Outside The Policy’s Coverage.
Sixt alleged that AutoDistributors breached the Franchise Agreement by “operating the unauthorized Used Car Sales Business at the Store” and “using the Store to facilitate a start-up incubator business.” That alleged conduct did not implicate any of the offenses in the definition of “personal and advertising injury,” so it did not trigger the duty to defend.
Sixt also alleged that AutoDistributors infringed Sixt’s trademarks by using the trademarks in connection with the used car business. Based on these allegations, Sixt alleged claims of trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. This theory was also part of Sixt’s breach of contract claim because Sixt argued that the Franchise Agreement restricted the use of the trademarks.
Even assuming that trademark infringement would constitute a “personal and advertising injury,” there was no coverage for these claims because of the policy’s IP Exclusion. That exclusion provides that the policy does not cover “personal and advertising injury” arising out of the infringement of “trademark.”
Although the Sixt Complaint used the word “slogan” once, that single word did not trigger the duty to defend when read in context. AutoDistributors points to no allegation in Sixt’s Complaint describing AutoDistributors’ use of items associated with Sixt’s slogans, as opposed to Sixt’s trademarks.
An insured may not trigger the duty to defend by speculating about extraneous “facts” regarding potential liability or ways in which the third party claimant might amend its complaint at some future date. The extrinsic facts which may create a duty to defend must be known by the insurer at the inception of the third party lawsuit.
ZALMA OPINION
Personal Injury liability coverage is a very broad coverage providing defense and indemnity for multiple types of offenses. The Scottsdale policy in this case provided a Personal Injury coverage but limited it with an IP exclusion that defeated the claim of AutoDistributors because it was clear and unambiguous.
(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 to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
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; 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; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
