This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Duty to Defend
Negligence

Thane International Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Published: Apr. 25, 2009 | Result Date: Mar. 10, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: EDCV 06-01244-VAP Bench Decision –  $971,300

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cheryl D. Soto
(Franklin Soto LLP)

Gary W. Osborne
(Osborne & Nesbitt LLP)

Dominic Nesbitt
(Osborne & Nesbitt LLP)


Defendant

Matthew Levy

Dean B. Herman

Catherine L. Rivard

Joseph Decker


Experts

Defendant

Brand Cooper
(technical)

Facts

In 2002, Christopher Atkins and company Rocky River Outdoor Inc. sued plaintiff Thane International Inc. alleging misappropriation of name and likeness. Thane International tendered the defense of this lawsuit to insurers Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (collectively Hartford), who denied the claim. Thane International later settled with Atkins. The settlement required transfer of products invented by Atkins and manufactured by Thane International. Thane International then sued Hartford for reimbursement of its defense costs as well as the value of the product transferred to Atkins et al. as part of the settlement.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that defendants were required to defend because Atkins' lawsuit alleged an "invasion of the right of privacy," a claim that was potentially covered by Hartford's policies. Based on Hartford's breach of its duty to defend, plaintiff sought reimbursement of its defense costs, reimbursement of the value of product transferred in settlement, as well as prejudgment interest.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that there was no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify because no damages were awarded in the Atkins lawsuit.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, Hartford's last offer to settle the case was $105,000. Thane's last demand was $838,000.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $106,333 in attorney fees and costs, $492,794 for the value of the transferred products to Atkins, and $372,000 in prejudgment interest.

Result

The court awarded plaintiff $971,299.82, which was comprised of $106,333 (defense cost), $492,794 (settlement cost) and $372,174 (prejudgment interest).


#82073

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390