Lexmark International, Inc. v. Transportation Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that courts look to “whether the alleged conduct arguably falls within at least one of the categories of wrongdoing listed in Nos. 24-1217 & 24-1223 11 the policy,” giving little weight to the “legal label that charac- terizes the underlying allegations”
• explaining that courts look to “whether the alleged conduct arguably falls within at least one of the categories of wrongdoing listed in Nos. 24-1217 & 24-1223 11 the policy,” giving little weight to the “legal label that charac- terizes the underlying allegations”
• declining to find a duty to defend based on infringement of slogan when the insured was accused of breach of contract and unfair business practices but not accused of lifting any of the plaintiffs slogans
• declining to look beyond the complaint when determining the insurer’s duty to defend because the complaints against the insured provide a plethora of facts and the consideration of extrinsic evidence would require the court to determine issues crucial to the underlying lawsuit
• disparagement requires untrue or misleading statements about a competitor’s goods that are “made to influence or tend to influence the public not to buy.”
• “The trade dress of a product is essentially ‘its total image and overall appearance.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).