A Video Explaining Some Advertising Injury Coverage

In Maryland Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Intern. Ltd 442 Md. 685, 706, 114 A.3d 676, 688 (2015) Maryland’s highest court concluded that none of the acts of the plaintiffs involved advertising injury and there was no obligation on the Insurers to defend or indemnify Blackstone.

In Brohawn v. Transamerica Insurance Company, 276 Md. 396, 347 A.2d 842 (1975), the Maryland high court recognized an insurance company’s duty to defend its insured for all claims which are potentially covered under an insurance policy.

A court should consider three inquiries when determining whether a policy provides coverage for advertising injury:

Is there an ‘advertising injury’ offense as defined by the policy?
Was the offense committed in the course of advertising your goods, products or services? And
Is there a causal connection between the advertising and the injury?”

Advertising injury provisions are typically specified risk coverages whose terms are designed to provide coverage for the enumerated claims only and not to provide generalized liability coverage. A highly attenuated connection to advertising is not sufficient to create coverage. To meet the causal connection requirement, the advertising injury claimed must be caused by an offense committed in the course of advertising. The question is whether the advertising did in fact contribute materially to the injury.