You are here: / / THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE,...

THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department upheld the declaratory judgment finding that defendant insurer does not have a duty to defend based upon the exclusion of coverage for antitrust violations. Despite the allegations in the complaint which colored the action as one for product disparagement, which would be covered, the complaint alleged antitrust violations:

The underlying lawsuit alleges, broadly, that plaintiff acquired and maintained its 90% market share of VHR (vehicle history report) sales by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme. Plaintiff contends that defendant owes it a defense in the suit because the suit alleges disparagement. It relies on the following allegations: “By contractually committing these two websites to include hyperlinks to Carfax VHRs and to exclude VHRs of any other provider, Carfax has stigmatized any listing without such a link in the eyes of consumers who infer that the absence means that the car has a blemished history.” “Carfax also utilizes its inflated revenues to disparage and falsely malign dealers in order to mislead consumers into believing its VHRs are necessary and accurate.”

These passing references to disparagement do not allege a “Wrongful Act” [within the meaning of the policy language].” They were made “only in the context of the anti-trust claims, i.e. , as legal jargon pertinent to anti-trust and not as a means of even arguably alleging a separate claim for libel, slander or product disparagement” … . Carfax, Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01409, First Dept 3-1-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPARTMENT))/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPARTMENT))/ANTITRUST ((INSURANCE LAW, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPARTMENT))

You might also like
NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.
LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DISPUTE INVOLVING MALAYSIAN BANKS, INCLUDING GOLDMAN SACHS SINGAPORE, PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
No Exigent Circumstances to Justify Search of a Closed Container in Defendant’s Possession Upon His Arrest for Minor Non Violent Offenses to Which the Contents of the Bag Could Have Had No Connection
DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION DESPITE THE PRIOR GRANTING OF AN IDENTICAL MOTION BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER SEVERAL DEFENDANTS IN THIS INTERNATIONAL BANK-FRAUD AND MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE... PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR...