Landmark Insurance Company v. NIP Group

Insurer filed declaratory judgment action as to obligation to defend or indemnify insured, an insurance complany in class action suit filed against it for sending unsolicited advertisements via fax. Court properly denied forum non conveniens motion. Court improperly refused to stay a portion of suit, under Peppers doctrine, as any determination of applicability of policy's intentional acts exclusion is premature while class action suit is ongoing. Whether insured's conduct was intentional is directly relevant to whether it can be held liable for intentional tort of conversion, and to whether it is subject to treble damages per federal ATCPA claim. As exclusion removed only certain types of advertising from coverage, claims arising out of other types of advertising must have been intended to be covered as advertising liaiblity, including fax advertisements. (HOFFMAN and LAMPKIN, concurring.)