Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Dish Network ruling goes against insurers in coverage dispute

Reprints
Dish Network ruling goes against insurers in coverage dispute

DENVER—A federal appeals court has overturned a district court's summary judgment that a group of primary general liability and excess liability insurers had no duty to defend Dish Network Corp. and its Dish Network L.L.C. subsidiary in a patent infringement case.

The insurance coverage dispute arose from a patent infringement complaint brought against Englewood, Colo.-based Dish—formerly EchoStar Communications Corp. and EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.—by Los Angeles-based Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L.P.

Dish purchased the insurance in question between 2001 and 2004, with Arrowood Indemnity Co. and Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois providing the primary coverage. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., XL Insurance America Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., provided excess coverage should the primary policies be exhausted. All of the policies included advertising injury coverage.

Advertising injury provisions disputed

Following the Katz Technology complaint, Dish sought a defense from its insurers, which denied coverage. Dish subsequently sued the insurers in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which granted the insurers' motion for summary judgment in the case, saying the case didn't meet the standard for patent infringement coverage under the policies' advertising injury provisions.

However, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver held otherwise, ruling Monday that the complaint against Dish did potentially allege advertising injury.

The appeals court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings and resolution of issues left unresolved at the lower court level. These include the excess insurers' assertion that they have no duty to defend unless Dish's primary coverage has been exhausted.

Read Next