Idg Inc Brent Johnson v. Continental Casualty Company Transportation Insurance Company Valley Forge Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
275 F.3d 916 · 2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc. · Gross v. Burggraf Construction Co. · Advance Watch Company, Limited v. Kemper National Insurance Company, the Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Cross-Appellee · Max True Plastering Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Silver v. Slusher
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere fact that Supervision was advertised or distributed at some point in time is not sufficient to transform Bur-son’s ownership infringement claims into advertising injury. See Novell [Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co. ], 141 F.3d [983] at 988 [(10th Cir.1998) ] (“The fact [the insured] may have advertised the competing product to consumers simply did not cause [the underlying plaintiffs] injuries”); see also Microtec Research, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 968, 971 (9th Cir.1994) (“If the [insured] does some wrongful act and then advertises it, harm caused by the wrongful act alone is not within the scope of the term advertising injury.”); Farmington [Casualty v. Cyberlogic Tech.], 996 F.Supp. [695] at 702 [ (E.D.Mich.1998) ] (holding that causal connection between alleged injuries and advertising activity cannot be satisfied by “a mere showing that the allegedly infringing product was advertised.”). “Otherwise, advertising injury coverage would apply whenever an advertised product or service is alleged to have caused harm, rendering the coverage applicable with respect to most claims against an insured business.” Advance Watch Co., Ltd. v. Kemper National Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 795, 806 (6th Cir.1996); see also National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Siliconix Inc., 729 F.Supp. 77, 80 (N.D.Ca.1989) (“Taken to its extreme, this argument would lead to the conclusion that any harmful act, if it were advertised in some way, would fall under the grant of coverage merely because it w”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.