In Clary, a California appellate court spoke for the first time on an issue on which Judge Caulfield expressly offered "no opinion" — the meaning of the coverage provision "infringement of title."
Summary of this case from American Economy Ins. Co. v. Reboans, Inc.Deleted December 22, 1994.
[EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 1411 — 1426 CONTAINING CLARY CORP. v. UNION STANDARD INS. CO. HAVE BEEN OMITTED.]
Deleted on direction of Supreme Court by order dated December 22, 1994.
In Clary, a California appellate court spoke for the first time on an issue on which Judge Caulfield expressly offered "no opinion" — the meaning of the coverage provision "infringement of title."
Summary of this case from American Economy Ins. Co. v. Reboans, Inc.In Clary, an insured was sued for patent infringement and sought coverage under its commercial general liability policy for advertising injury arising out of infringement of title.
Summary of this case from American Economy Ins. Co. v. Reboans, Inc.Full title:Clary Corp. v. Union Standard Ins. Co
Court:Court of Appeal of California
Date published: Dec 22, 1994
American States' response to Reboans' motion in the district court was due on September 1, 1994, but it filed…
Sentex Systems, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.According to Hartford, "infringement of title" should be construed to mean infringement of a business "name"…