قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Hartford unit wins defense clothing suit against tech firm

Hartford unit wins defense clothing suit against tech firm



A federal appeal court has confirmed a judgment in favor of a Hartford Insurance Group entity and claimed that the insurer was not obliged to defend an information management company in trademark laws due to policy approvals that exclude coverage.

Reston, Virginia based Synaptek Corp was sued in disputes that charged it with alleged trademark infringement and infringement of unfair competition laws in the context of advertising and marketing, according to Tuesday's ruling of the 4th US Court of Appeal in Richmond, Virginia, in Synaptek Corp. v. Sentinel Insurance Co.

When the insurer Hartford Insurance Group Unit Sentinel refused to defend the company, Synaptek tried to condemn it in the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, the policy covered the requirements of the underlying trademark dispute and thus required Sentinel to defend.

The Court of Appeal ruled in Sent inel's service, which was confirmed by a unanimous three judge's appeal court panel. Remarks in two parts of the insurance policy, business responsibility and technology sections, exclude coverage, they said.

A corporate liability statement "clarifies that the coverage only applies to three of the offenses listed in the Corporate Liability section ̵

1; false arrest, malicious prosecution and improper expulsion – and excludes coverage for any other offense," the court said.

clear and unambiguous languages ​​"the court correctly concluded the section did not provide coverage for the requirements of the underlying trademark dispute, the ruling said.

The ruling also said the policy section" applies only to their claims for "glitches" in technical services "performed by others, "the verdict says. However, the underlying requirements in the trademark quota focused on Synaptec's marketing of its own products and services, the court said in confirmation of the court's judgment.

Lawyers in the case could not immediately be reached for comments. 19659002]

                    


Source link