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

Hartford unit wins defense cover suit against tech firm


A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling in favor of a Hartford Insurance Group unit and held the insurer was not obligated to defend an information technology management company in trademark litigation because of policy endorsements that precluded coverage.

Reston, Virginia-based Synaptek Corp. was sued in litigation charging it with alleged trademark infringement and violations of state unfair competition law in connection with its advertising and marketing, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, in Synaptek Corp. v. Sentinel Insurance Co.

When its insurer, Hartford Insurance Group unit Sentinel, refused to defend the company, Synaptek filed suit against it in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, seeking a declaration its policy covered the claims in the underlying trademark dispute and so required Sentinel to provide a defense.

The District Court ruled in Sentinel’s favor, which was upheld by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel. Endorsements in two sections of the insurance policy, the business liability and the technology sections, precluded coverage, said the ruling.

A business liability endorsement “makes clear that coverage applies only to three of the offenses listed in the Business Liability Section – false arrest, malicious prosecution and wrongful eviction – and precludes coverage for all other offenses,” said the ruling.

Given the endorsement’s “clear and unambiguous language,” the District Court correctly concluded the section did not provide coverage for the claims in the underlying trademark dispute, the ruling said.

The ruling said also the policy’s technology section “applies by its terms only to claims for ‘glitches’ in technology services ‘performed by others,’” said the ruling. The underlying claims in the trademark dispute, however, centered on Synaptek’s marketing of its “own products and services,” said the ruling, in affirming the lower court’s judgment.

Attorneys in the case could not immediately be reached for comment.




Read Next

  • Hartford unit expands technology breakdown coverage

    Engineering and technical risk insurer Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. on Wednesday said it has expanded the availability of HSB TechAdvantage, its technology and equipment breakdown insurance to most of the United States.