Decisions Roundup: Win for Doors Keyboardist, Loss for Fox in Insurance Cases

Posted by Matthew Heller

Case: Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

Court: 9th Circuit

Date: March 25, 2008

Facts: Plaintiff Ray Manzarek, the keyboardist for The Doors, sued St. Paul Fire & Marine for bad faith after the insurer declined to defend him against trademark infringement suits filed by former Doors drummer John Densmore and survivors of singer Jim Morrison. A trial judge dismissed the case based on a clause in Manzarek's policies which excluded advertising injury coverage for the “advertising or publicizing for, any Properties or Programs which are within your Field of Entertainment Business.”

Holding: The 9th Circuit reversed, finding that the allegations of improper use of The Doors logo in the underlying trademark suits triggered a contractual duty to defend. The definition of "Field of Entertainment Business" in the policies, it said, "is not broad enough to cover the entirety of the allegations in the Underlying Lawsuits." In addition, Densmore's allegations that Manzarek's actions damaged his "reputation and stature" raised a potential for coverage under the policies' "bodily injury" provision.

Attorneys of Record: Kirk Pasich of Dickstein Shapiro in Los Angeles for Manzarek; Andrew McCloskey of Riedl McCloskey & Waring in San Diego for St. Paul.

To view the opinion, click here.

Case: Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Fox Entertainment Group

Court: 2nd Circuit

Date: March 27, 2008

Facts: Two insurers -- Employers and National Casualty -- sued Fox for a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to defend a copyright infringement suit related to the soap opera "Santa Barbara" because the studio breached provisions of its policies requiring prompt notice and cooperation. Fox then sued the insurers for bad faith. A trial judge dismissed the insurers' suit, finding the "first-filed rule" did not apply because of two "special circumstances" -- the insurers sued prematurely and were motivated by forum-shopping.

Holding: There was no "factual basis in the record" to support the trial court's finding of special circumstances warranting departure from the first-filed rule. The insurers' suit "was not an improper anticipatory action" as no "specific, direct threat of litigation" existed at the time it was filed. Moreover, the insurers' exclusion of certain parties as defendants was more likely the "result of the complexities of the merger and acquisition activity" involving Fox than impermissible forum-shopping.

Attorneys of Record: David Smallman of Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch in New York for Employers; Andrew Bourne of Dickstein Shapiro in New York for Fox.

To view the opinion, click here.