Insights
Publications

“Unfair Trade Practices” Exclusion Does Not Extend to Consumer Protection Claims

February 2, 2021 Blog

Two phrases combined in a single exclusion—“alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any violation of any law…” and “as respects… unfair trade practices” could inspire carriers to make trouble for policyholders seeking coverage for consumer protection claims. Fortunately, a recent federal decision recognizes that California rules of policy construction limit the scope of this exclusion, in line with a policyholder’s reasonable expectations of coverage.

In James River Ins. Co. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. Inc., Case No. CV 19-6658-GW-MAAx (C.D. Cal., January 25, 2021), the district court was called upon to decide whether this exclusion barred coverage for claims that Rawlings misrepresented the weights of its baseball bats on their labeling. The consumers brought these claims in a class action complaint, seeking relief under the following California statutes: (1) Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (2) False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.; and (3) Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. There was no question that the claim fell within the coverage for wrongful acts, but Rawlings’ directors and officers liability insurer, Starr, denied coverage under an “Anti-Trust Exclusion,” which stated: 

This policy shall not cover any Loss in connection with any Claim alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any violation of any law, whether statutory, regulatory or common, as respects any of the following: anti-trust, business competition, unfair trade practices or tortious interference in another’s business or contractual relationships; provided, however, that this exclusion shall apply only to the Company.

The term “unfair trade practices” was not defined in the Starr policies. In support of its denial of coverage, Starr argued that: (1) the statutes under which the claims were brought described the alleged wrongdoing as “unfair trade practices” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices”; and (2) that the phrase “arising out of…” has been construed broadly by California courts, citing to California State Auto Ass’s Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Warwick (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 190, 195. 

The district court made short work of Starr’s second argument, stating “the fact that an exclusion applies to ‘any claims arising out of XYZ’ does not help with figuring out what XYZ means in the first place.” (quoting Big Bridge Holdings, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. (N.D. Ill. 2015) 132 F. Supp.3d 982, 987). In Big Bridge, the court was interpreting the same phrase “unfair trade practices,” which was likewise undefined.

The court spent more time demolishing Starr’s argument that “unfair trade practices” as used in the Anti-Trust Exclusion encompassed consumer protection claims, not just anti-competitive claims. The court based its conclusion on the following propositions, all of which are consistent with fundamental principles of policy construction:

  • As a general rule exclusions are construed narrowly against the insurer.
  • Applying Starr’s interpretation would “virtually read the ‘misstatement, misleading statement, omission’ language right out of the policies’ coverage [the D&O coverage grant], vitiating them.” The exception should not swallow the rule.
  • Other than the term “unfair trade practices,” which the court found to be ambiguous, all of the excluded conduct referred to competitive injuries rather than consumer injuries (implicitly adopting Rawlings argument that “[A] word takes meaning from the company it keeps.” Credit Suisse First Bos. Mortg. Capital, LLC v. Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1290, 1298 n. 6 (referring to the rule of construction noscitur a sociis).”
  • Admissible evidence established that Starr had drafted other policy exclusions which expressly excluded coverage for false advertising—"Starr clearly knew how to draft a false-advertising exclusion and in fact did do so.” (Though not cited by the court, this is consistent with the principle that “failure to use available language expressly excluding [a specific type of] coverage implies a manifested intent not to do so.” Pardee Const. Co. v. Ins. Co. of the West, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1340, 1359 (2000)). The exclusion was labeled “Anti-Trust Exclusion,” not “Anti-trust/Consumer Fraud Exclusion.”

It is worth noting that, while the Rawlings decision did not raise it, the limitation on unfair trade practices to require anticompetitive conduct is likewise consistent with California law. See, e.g., Cel-Tech Commcn’s, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 186 (1999) (even under the UCL, a claim for an “unfair business practice” requires that the conduct be comparable to or threaten an incipient violation of antitrust law).

Although the Rawlings court stated that it considered the issue a “close one,” it also noted that in “the insured-friendly state of California, ‘any ambiguity or uncertainty in an insurance policy is to be resolved against the insurer.’” (citing to Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 800, 807). 

Those who represent policyholders might respectfully disagree with the court’s view that the issue was “close.” However, we certainly agree that the court reached the correct result under California law.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Maximizing Business Insurance Coverage Benefits After a Fire

Unfortunately, we again write while wildfire is devouring homes and businesses in Napa and Sonoma, and threatening many more. We’ve previously posted tips about first steps that you should take in the event your...

Read More
Event

Perspectives on Virtual Proceedings: ADR & Claims Resolution in a COVID World

Erica Villanueva will be speaking at the 2021 Virtual Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar on "Perspectives on Virtual Proceedings: ADR & Claims Resolution in a COVID World."

Read More
News

Benchmark Litigation 2021 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms in California

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms in California in the  Benchmark Litigation  2021 guide. Farella was ranked “Highly Recommended” for Dispute Resolution...

Read More
Publication

Maximizing Insurance Coverage: What Cannabis Businesses Need to Know

Farella's Cannabis Industry Education Series features Tyler Gerking discussing "Maximizing Insurance Coverage: What Cannabis Businesses Need to Know." The cannabis industry has flourished, along with it the cannabis insurance market has grown. As more carriers...

Read More
Publication

D&O Professionals Series: Tyler Gerking Discusses D&O Coverage and Litigation

Insurance Recovery partner Tyler Gerking explores current trends and observations on D&O coverage and litigation on Willis Towers Watson's "D&O Professionals Series." Read the full article,  here .

Read More
News

Lawyers Advising California’s Wineries Navigate a Pandemic and Wildfires

Partners Tyler Gerking and Matt Lewis were interviewed in the Daily Journal article "Lawyers advising California’s wineries navigate a pandemic and wildfires."

Read More
Publication

What Nonprofits Need to Know About Landlord-Tenants Relationships and Insurance

Amy Briggs and Tony Schoenberg discuss "What Nonprofits Need to Know About Landlord-Tenants Relationships and Insurance." Real estate is one of the most significant costs for an exempt organization. Furthermore, the laws governing landlord-tenant...

Read More
Publication

Insurance Dispute Resolution

Farella's Real Estate Webinar Series features Amy Briggs discussing "Insurance Dispute Resolution." Businesses have filed claims seeking recovery help under their insurance policies due to various governmental closure orders arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Losses related...

Read More
Publication

COVID-19 Exposure and GL Coverage: Issues for Personal Injury Claims

Though much of the conversation regarding insurance coverage for COVID-19-related losses has focused on the potential for business interruption-type coverage (see prior discussion  here ), insureds should not overlook the potential that COVID risks...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More