Select Design, Ltd. v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a company’s solicitation of its competitors customers did not constitute “advertising”
• holding that “advertising” is not ambiguous, despite disagreement in the courts
• collecting cases holding plain and ordinary-meaning of “advertising” unambiguously refers to widespread distribution of promotional material designed to generate business
• discussing cases in various states suggesting that the “majority view” interprets advertising as the widespread distribution of promotional material to the public at large
• declining to accept the argument that “ ‘solicitation’ constitutes ‘advertising,’ ” clarifying that advertising can be done as a means of solicitation, or a solicitous statement can be used in advertising, but that they were not co-extensive
• “Disputed terms [in a policy] should be read according to their plain, ordinary and popular meaning.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).