PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Advertising Injury / Fifth Circuit Clarifies Meaning of “Advertising Idea” in Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage Section of Standard CGL Policy

Fifth Circuit Clarifies Meaning of “Advertising Idea” in Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage Section of Standard CGL Policy

November 3, 2023 by Alex M. Bein

In Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. A.H.D. Houston Inc., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the meaning of the undefined term “advertising idea” in the insuring agreement of a commercial general liability policy’s “personal and advertising injury” coverage section.

In that case, insurer Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (PESLIC) issued two commercial general liability policies to several Texas strip clubs. The strip clubs were sued in Texas state court by 16 models following the clubs’ use of the models’ likeness for advertising campaigns without the models’ consent. As the models alleged in their complaint, the clubs’ advertising material was manipulated to give the inaccurate impression that the models either endorsed the clubs or worked as strippers in the clubs. PESLIC filed a declaratory judgment action against the clubs and the models in federal court, seeking a declaration that no coverage was owed under the commercial general liability policies in connection with the models’ lawsuit.

In the district court, the models and clubs argued that coverage was available under the “Coverage B – Personal and Advertising Injury” coverage section of both commercial general liability policies, citing specifically to a subsection providing coverage for damages caused by the “use of another’s advertising idea in your ‘advertisement.’” The district court agreed with the models and clubs and found coverage under both policies, rejecting PESLIC’s reliance on certain exclusions in the process.

On appeal, PESLIC argued that the district court erred when it found that the clubs’ unlawful use of the models’ images constituted use of their “advertising idea,” contending that the “misappropriation of a person’s image is not an appropriation of that person’s ‘idea.’” The models countered that the district court was correct, arguing that their images constitute “‘advertising ideas’ by which they commercialize their brands.”

The Fifth Circuit began its analysis by noting that the term “advertising idea” was undefined in the commercial general liability policies and had not yet been addressed by Texas courts. The court nonetheless looked to its prior holding in Laney Chiropractic & Sports Therapy, P.A. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., in which the court held that no “advertising idea” was implicated where the defendant had unlawfully used a patented product and advertised that product on its website. Adopting the reasoning in Laney, the court held that the use of the models’ likeness was more akin to use of their “product” than their “advertising idea”:

[T]he Clubs’ misappropriation of the Models’ images did not amount to use of their “advertising idea” because at essence, the Models’ images are their products, not their advertising ideas. The Clubs took those products and used them without permission. Without more, taking and then advertising another’s product is different from taking another’s “advertising idea.”

As such, the court concluded that the models’ lawsuit did not implicate the clubs’ use of another’s “advertising idea” under the personal and advertising injury coverage section of the commercial general liability policies. The court rejected the models’ and clubs’ other arguments in favor of coverage and concluded that there was no duty to defend under the policies.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Washington Appellate Court Finds Insureds’ Failure to Provide Statutory Notice of Intent to Sue Did Not Void Default Judgments Against Insurer

Next Article »

Ninth Circuit Finds Excess Carrier Owes Nothing to Insured Who Failed to Obtain Prior Written Consent to Settlement

About Alex M. Bein

Alex M. Bein is an attorney at Carlton Fields in New York.

Related Articles

  1. Sixth Circuit Finds Lanham Act False Advertising Claim Not a Personal and Advertising Injury Under General Liability Policy
  2. Colorado Federal Court Finds “Kona” Class Actions Did Not Trigger “Personal and Advertising Injury” Insuring Agreement
  3. Second Circuit Holds “Offering for Sale” Is “Advertising Injury” Under CGL Policy, But Allegation Not Enough to Trigger Duty to Defend
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing