Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Swift Distribution, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding allegations in underlying suit that insured’s product name created customer confusion with the underlying plaintiffs product and that insured’s advertisements implied the inferiority of the underlying plaintiff “[insufficient to support a possible claim of disparagement”
• noting that under Restatement 18 (Second) of Torts Section 629, a statement is disparaging if it casts doubt upon the quality 19 of another’s property, the publisher intends the statement to cast doubt, and the recipient’s 20 understanding of it as casting doubt was reasonable
• looking 6 first to the plain meaning of a provision when interpreting insurance contracts
• “Reducing the price of goods, without more, cannot constitute a disparagement”
• “Reducing the price of goods, without more, cannot constitute a disparagement”
• “An insurer must defend against a suit 12 ||even where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not 13 covered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).