California Supreme Court
Jun. 20, 2014
State high court clears up confusion over disparagement
The court has essentially closed the door on future attempts to shoehorn more claims under the seemingly broad term "disparagement."
Stephen L. Raucher
Partner
Reuben Raucher & Blum
Email: sraucher@rrbattorneys.com
Stephen practices complex business litigation, with an emphasis on representing policyholders in insurance disputes.
On June 12, the state Supreme Court resolved a dispute between two appellate divisions and clarified the scope of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer's duty to defend an insured under the policy's personal and advertising injury coverage against a claim of disparagement - and, along the way, laid out the elements of the previously murky cause of action known as "disparagement." In Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swift Distribution Inc., 2014 DJDAR 7443, the court held ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In